A Connecticut federal judge has denied a request for an award for attorney fees to an investment analyst who beat back his former employer's motion for preliminary injunction in a trade-secrets case against him.

In a case that hinged on damages, defendant Steven Bongiovanni admitted to having secretly made and kept at least five recordings of meetings with personnel at his former company, Graham Capital Management L.P. But despite the clandestine nature of the recordings, the court found the plaintiff did not prove injury, when it sought an injunction.

Bongiovanni claimed he secretly recorded conversations in order to gather information for his age-discrimination lawsuit against the company. He filed the age-discrimination suit and then was countersued. Bongiovanni maintained he never shared the information he recorded with anyone.

Bongiovanni admitted to secretly recording conversations. This is prohibited under Connecticut criminal law, which requires consent from all parties. But even with that caveat, the court denied Graham Capital's motion for preliminary injunction because the company could not "demonstrate actual and imminent injury."

The Graham Capital lawsuit states Bongiovanni recorded three research department discussions. In a deposition, Bongiovanni admitted secretly recording meetings where discussions of confidential company proprietary trading systems and models took place, but said they were only done to gather information for his age discrimination lawsuit and was not done maliciously.

The court agreed with Bongiovanni and said "failure to keep the recordings on Graham Capital's premise was an honest mistake."

Bongiovanni filed a motion for attorney fees after a federal judge ruled against Graham Capital's motion for a preliminary injunction. Graham Capital had sought an order from the court to prevent Bongiovanni from using confidential company information or trade secrets.

Bongiovanni had argued he was entitled to attorney fees because Graham Capital's action "was meritless and brought for improper, retaliatory purposes." He alleged the move was an attempt to influence his pending Superior Court age-discrimination litigation by casting him "as [a] 'bad actor,' and depleting his limited resources."

Bongiovanni prevailed on the preliminary injunction, but U.S. District Court District of Connecticut Judge Victor Bolden denied his request for attorney fees Monday.

"Bongiovanni has not shown by clear evidence that Graham Capital's claims were entirely without color and made for reasons of harassment or delay or for other improper purposes," the judge ruled.

Bongiovanni filed a December 2017 age-based discrimination lawsuit against the company in Superior Court. The company fired Bongiovanni, who was 56 years old at the time, as its senior quantitative research analyst in October 2016, after 12 years with the firm. Soon after, Graham Capital countersued in federal court, demanding the return of all company documents, recordings and computer programs. Graham Capital sued for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty.

Bongiovanni's discrimination suit is pending. And while Graham Capital's request for a preliminary injunction was denied, the rest of its suit against Bongiovanni in federal court is pending.

Graham Capital, in its lawsuit, says Bongiovanni attended numerous research department meetings "at which there was wide-ranging discussions of GCM's confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information, including details and parameters of GCM's various trade systems and models."

The Rowayton-based investment firm manages approximately $15 billion in assets on behalf of global pensions, wealth funds, endowments and foundations, and individual investors, using a variety of quantitative investment strategies. It was founded in 1994 and has about 200 employees.

Representing Graham Capital are Day Pitney attorneys Daniel Schwartz and Howard Fetner. Both attorneys declined to comment on the case Tuesday.

Representing Bongiovanni are Mark Carey, Jill Saluck, and Elizabeth Swedock, all with Southport-based Carey & Associates. None of the attorneys responded to a request for comment.

Read more: