With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". now allow plaintiffs to show liability for trade-secrets misappropriation under the theory. The theory allows plaintiff employers to demonstrate threatened misappropriation without evidence of an employee’s intent to disclose trade secrets. “In finding a likelihood of disclosure, other courts that have applied the inevitable disclosure theory have considered the degree of competition between the former and new employer, and the new employer’s efforts to safeguard the former’s employer’s trade secrets, and the former employee’s ‘lack of forthrightness both in his activities before accepting his job ... and in his testimony,’ as well as the degree of similarity between the employee’s former and current position.” Merck & Co., Inc. v. Lyon, 941 F.Supp. 1443, 1460 (M.D.N.C.1996) (<HOLDING>) (internal citations omitted). A decision from

A: holding that supplier lists can be trade secrets under indianas uniform trade secrets act which uses the same definition of a trade secret as montana
B: holding that the loss of trade secrets cannot be measured in money damages
C: holding that the burden of establishing the true existence of a trade secret and its value to the owner remains on the claimant who must submit evidence relating to the six factors that texas law considers for trade secret status
D: holding that the inevitable disclosure theory can be applied under north carolina law where 1 injunction is limited to protecting specifically defined trade secrets and 2 the trade secret is clearly identified and of significant value
D.