section_id,filing_id,heading,summary
458,61,A. Exemplary damages are not recoverable because Question 17 was not answered unanimously,"Distinguishes three cases Pohl cited: (1) Bruce — no Additional Certificate requiring specific unanimity certification, unlike present case; (2) Stover — predicate questions (Q15 and Q16 on fraud and malice) were certified as unanimous in the Additional Certificate, unlike Q17 here; (3) Bryan — trial judge noticed ambiguity and sent jury back, but nothing required the party opposing exemplary damages to object. Argues Redwine is most analogous — jury's failure to certify predicate question as unanimous bars exemplary damages; 'this situation does not amount to a conflicting jury finding, where a party must object before the jury is discharged.' Under United Scaffolding v. Levine, defendant has no obligation to complain about plaintiff's omission; burden to secure proper findings is on plaintiff. Section 41.003(b) provides burden of proving exemplary damages may not be shifted to defendant."
459,61,B. Attorney's fees in other litigation are not recoverable as actual damages under TUTSA,"Notes that at the hearing, when the Court asked Pohl if any court in any jurisdiction had awarded attorney's fees in other litigation as actual damages for a trade secret claim, Pohl could not cite any. Distinguishes Pohl's out-of-state cases: Dunsmore authorized recovery of fees/commissions from candidate placements, not attorney's fees from litigation; World Wide Prosthetic concerned lost profits from manufacture/distribution of defective product. Distinguishes Akin Gump as a malpractice case — Pohl is not a 'malpractice plaintiff.' On tort of another, argues Pohl lacks clean hands per Frazier v. Havens because jury found wrongful conduct in Q3. The issue is not causation (Q4 assigned 0% to Pohl) but that one found to have engaged in 'wrongful conduct' does not have clean hands for equitable relief."
460,61,C. Conspiracy is preempted by TUTSA,"Cites Reynolds v. Sanchez Oil & Gas Corp. from the First Court of Appeals, which held TUTSA preempts aiding and abetting claim based on misappropriation of trade secrets under the plain language of TUTSA. The conspiracy question (Q15) asked about 'the conduct you found in answer to Question No. 2' — which asked whether parties 'misappropriate[d] Pohl's trade secret.' Because Pohl's conspiracy claim is based entirely on alleged misappropriation of trade secrets, it is preempted."
461,61,D. The jury's finding of no liability on Precision means no liability on Kassab,"Pohl acknowledges there is 'nothing inconsistent' about the jury's findings, undermining the waiver argument. The issue is whether Pohl can legally recover against Kassab after jury exonerated Precision. If there was no misappropriation when information passed from Pohl to Precision, then no one downstream could have misappropriated. Cites Levine — plaintiff has burden to secure proper findings, not defendant. Kassab was not required to 'forfeit a winning hand' by objecting to jury findings."