1
2
3
4
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH
NIKE, INC., an Oregon corporation,
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
vs.
DENIS DEKOVIC, an individual; MARC
DOLCE, an individual; and MARK MINER,
an individual,
11
Defendant.
12
13
I, Marc Dolce declare:
14
1.
No. 14CV18876
DECLARATION OF MARC
DOLCE IN OPPOSITION TO
MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
SHOULD NOT ISSUE
I was employed by Nike, Inc. from October 2005 until September 22, 2014
as a footwear designer.
15
2.
16
When I decided to leave Nike, I accepted a job with adidas that will not
17
begin until after the period of my Nike noncompete agreement ends. Nike now
18
seems to contend that the noncompete agreement handcuffed me from even
19
beginning a job search until after the noncompete term ends. They claim that merely
20
talking to a competitor about a future job amounts to being connected with a
21
competitor. I do not agree with that interpretation, and it simply makes no sense.
22
Otherwise, employees abiding by the noncompete agreement would spend their
23
MARKOWITZ HERBOLD PC
24
SUITE 3000 PACWEST CENTER
1211 SW FIFTH AVENUE
PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3730
(503) 295-3085
25
26
1! -
DECLARATION OF MARC DOLCE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION
FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE
entire noncompete term not knowing when they will have their next job or where
they will work.
3.
I, along with Denis Dekovic and Mark Miner, met with representatives of
adidas prior to leaving Nike. During our meetings, and in our communications with
adidas, we were not asked to and we did not share any Nike secrets or confidential
information. In Nikes court filings, it compares the Nike Kitchen with adidas
Brooklyn Design Studio concept. The concept is fundamentally different than the
Nike Kitchen. I do not intend to play any role in the Brooklyn Design Studio during
the period of my noncompete, and I am not aware of any advancement of the
10
concept beyond a conceptual description of what the scope of my job at adidas could
11
be once I begin working there. I am not doing any work for adidas now, and do not
12
intend to during the period of my noncompete.
13
4.
I have a large Instagram following. My popularity on social media is not
14
measured by followers, but by likes that my followers post of my postings. I have
15
an active social media following, which has nothing to do with purchased followers.
16
5.
When I left Nike, I removed all of my personal information from my
17
electronic devices before turning them in to Nike. I also gave Nike my passwords. I
18
took nothing, and to the best of my knowledge, I retained nothing other than some
19
historical portfolio examples regarding products I designed that are in the public
20
domain. I have given adidas nothing other than my commitment to start working
21
when my noncompete agreement expires.
22
23
MARKOWITZ HERBOLD PC
24
SUITE 3000 PACWEST CENTER
1211 SW FIFTH AVENUE
PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3730
(503) 295-3085
25
26
2! -
DECLARATION OF MARC DOLCE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION
FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE
6.
I do not have any Nike design plans, and I did nothing three days before I
left to obtain them. To the contrary, as Nike is well-aware, I continued to work up
until my last day because I was committed to my projects success for Nike. For
example, I finished the design for the Penny 6 right before I left. Three days prior to
leaving, I also worked on the Victor Cruz design (using the same Nike file sharing
service Hightail I and other Nike designers commonly used to work on files
greater than 10 MB), so that I could finalize it and pass it onto the Nike product
team. That is exactly what I did, sending the file back to Nike before I left the
company. It was a simple design. I did not retain a copy of anything I sent, and I do
10
not currently have copies of any Nike confidential or proprietary information.
11
7.
The athletic footwear industry is fast moving and rapidly changing. Things I
12
knew about Nikes product development and design may already be stale, and will
13
certainly be ancient history when I begin working at adidas. Besides, as a creative
14
person, I thrive on innovation and freshness. I wanted to leave Nike because I
15
wanted to grow in my career and I did not believe Nike presented that opportunity.
16
If I thought adidas wanted to hire me to implement Nikes ideas, I would never have
17
accepted the job.
18
8.
I am not presently working in the athletic apparel or footwear design
19
industry. So even if I had any Nike information, it is of no use to me. I have not
20
agreed to, and I do not intend to, provide any confidential Nike information to
21
adidas. adidas has never asked me for any such information.
22
23
MARKOWITZ HERBOLD PC
24
SUITE 3000 PACWEST CENTER
1211 SW FIFTH AVENUE
PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3730
(503) 295-3085
25
26
3! -
DECLARATION OF MARC DOLCE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION
FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE
9.
I have not directly or indirectly solicited or diverted any Nike employees. I
have no authority to offer employment, and adidas has told us not to talk to Nike
employees about adidas opportunities (or lack thereof). I did not post an
announcement on social media about resigning from Nike or joining adidas.
10. Almost all of the allegations that Nike has made against me are either false
or are misleading half-truths, but because I only learned of this lawsuit yesterday, I
have not yet had the opportunity to respond to every paragraph.
8
9
10
I hereby declare that the above statement is true to the best of my knowledge and
belief, and that I understand it is made for use as evidence in court and is subject to
penalty for perjury.
11
DATED this 9th day of December, 2014.
12
13
14
15
16
17
____________________________________
Marc Dolce
18
19
20
21
22
23
MARKOWITZ HERBOLD PC
24
SUITE 3000 PACWEST CENTER
1211 SW FIFTH AVENUE
PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3730
(503) 295-3085
25
26
4! -
DECLARATION OF MARC DOLCE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION
FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE
ATTORNEY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on December 9, 2014, I have made service of the foregoing
DECLARATION OF MARC DOLCE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE on the party/ies listed
below in the manner indicated:
Amy Joseph Pedersen, OSB No. 853958
Laura E. Rosenbaum, OSB No. 110061
Ryan S. Gibson, OSB No. 073873
Stoel Rives LLP
900 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2600
Portland, OR 97204
U.S. Mail (Laura E. Rosenbaum
and Ryan Gibson)
Facsimile
Hand Delivery (Amy Joseph Pedersen)
Overnight Courier
Email (Laura E. Rosenbaum
and Ryan Gibson)
Jeffrey H. Reeves (Pro Hac Vice pending)
Jeffrey T. Thomas (Pro Hac Vice pending)
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
3161 Michelson Drive
Irvine, CA 92612-4412
U.S. Mail (Jeffrey T. Thomas)
Facsimile
Hand Delivery (Jeffrey H. Reeves)
Overnight Courier
Email (Jeffrey T. Thomas)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
DATED this 9th day of December, 2014.
/s/ Matthew A. Levin
Matthew A. Levin
OSB #003054
Attorney for Defendants
NEWMAL2\422636
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Print this page
Case # 14CV18876 - Nike, IncvsDennis Dekovic, Marc Dolce,
Mark Miner
Case Information
Location
Multnomah Civil
Date Filed
Case Number
Case Description
Assigned to Judge
Attorney
Firm Name
Filed By
Fees
Convenience Fee
Total Court Case Fees
Total Court Filing Fees
Total Court Service Fees
Total Filing & Service Fees
Total Service Tax Fees
Total Provider Service Fees
Total Provider Tax Fees
Grand Total
Payment
Account Name
12/09/2014 05:10:59 PM
14CV18876
Nike, IncvsDennis Dekovic, Marc Dolce, Mark Miner
Transaction Amount
Transaction Response
Transaction ID
$0.00
Order #
000057370-0
Declaration - DD
Filing Type
Filing Code
EFile
Declaration - DD
Filing Description
Reference Number
Matthew Levin
Markowitz, Herbold, Glade & Mehlhaf, PC
Matthew Levin
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Cynda Herbold
82197
NEWMAL2 - Nike v. Dekovic
DECLARATION OF MARC DOLCE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION
FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW
Comments
CAUSE WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT
ISSUE
Courtesy Copies
Status
Fees
michellerobles@markowitzherbold.com
Submitting
Court Fee
Service Fee
$0.00
$0.00
Documents
Lead Document
Dolce Declaration.pdf
[Original]
