section_id,filing_id,heading,summary
546,68,I. Summary,"Motion to Modify consists of recycled arguments previously made and rejected. Kassab re-argues in shotgun fashion that all damages are not recoverable. Both actual and exemplary damages are reasonable and fully supported by verdict, evidence, and law."
547,68,II. Jury Properly Awarded Exemplary Damages,"Q17 was unanimously answered 'Yes' — jury instructed to only answer 'Yes' if unanimous. Q19 predicated on unanimous Q17 — jury could not have answered Q19 unless unanimous on Q17. Kassab did not request jury be polled. Stover v. ADM Milling directly on point — exemplary damages sufficient even without separate unanimity certificate when jury answered later question predicated on unanimity. Redwine distinguished (single cause of action, jury polled confirming non-unanimity). Bruce v. Oscar Renda: general non-unanimity certificate not in conflict when jury permitted to answer some questions by 10-2 vote. Bryan v. Papalia: original non-unanimous certificate did not override jury's unanimous answers after clarification. Presumption jury followed instructions (Columbia Rio Grande). Court must harmonize findings (Menchaca, Bender, Luna, Jackson). Kassab waived by not objecting before jury discharged (Menchaca, Burbage, Fleet, Continental Cas. Co., Tex. R. Civ. P. 295)."
548,68,III. Pohl Entitled to Recover Actual Losses Under TUTSA,"A. TUTSA 'actual loss' is broad, encompasses consequential damages including attorney fees from separate proceedings. Flexible and imaginative approach (Sw. Energy). Sister states agree actual loss is broad (World Wide Prosthetic, Dunsmore). Kassab conflates same-lawsuit fees (not recoverable) with separate-proceeding fees (recoverable). Kassab's Texas citations involve same-lawsuit fees or are inapplicable: LaCore (same lawsuit), O'Neal (same lawsuit), Woodhaven (same lawsuit), Tana Oil (not about fees), Martin-Simon (overruled by Akin Gump). Akin Gump: attorney fees from separate proceedings recoverable even absent agreement. Also recoverable under equitable tort of another doctrine (Dixon Fin. Servs.). No wholly innocent party element exists (Naschke, Brannan Paving, Akin Gump). Jury assigned 0% fault to Pohl in Q4 (proportionate responsibility tied to trade secrets). Q3 (wrongful conduct) not tied to trade secrets — jury asked if Q3 should be answered even without trade secret finding, Court instructed yes with Kassab's agreement. B. Rule 17.09 inapplicable — lawsuit predicated on misappropriation, not grievance filing."
549,68,IV. Damages Not Duplicative,"TUTSA expressly authorizes recovery of 'both the actual loss caused by misappropriation and the unjust enrichment caused by misappropriation that is not taken into account in computing actual loss' (§ 134A.004(a)). Jury instructed not to double-compensate. Market value compensated forward loss (destruction/lessening of trade secret value); development costs compensated past unjust enrichment (avoided costs). Unjust enrichment is equitable remedy that disgorges gains rather than compensating loss — cannot be duplicative of actual loss (Nguyen v. Watts, Villarreal)."
550,68,V. Conspiracy Not Preempted,"Civil conspiracy is a theory of vicarious liability, not an independent tort (Agear Corp.). Chapter 33 does not supersede conspiracy's joint and several liability (Guillory v. Dietrich, Stephens v. Three Finger). Kassab's unpublished federal cases erroneously treated conspiracy as cause of action. No Texas caselaw holds TUTSA preempts conspiracy to misappropriate trade secrets. Texas trial courts continue to submit both (Whitlock). Conspiracy does not provide conflicting remedy — merely makes TUTSA damages joint and several. No more inconsistent with TUTSA than proportionate responsibility. Kassab's own TUTSA expert (Joseph Cleveland) assumes conspiracy can coexist with TUTSA."
551,68,VI. Pohl Entitled to Attorneys' Fees; No Take Nothing Judgment,"Kassab's omnibus argument: settlement credit exceeds damages so Pohl not prevailing party. But Pohl's actual damages exceed $1,400,000, greatly exceeding $765,000 settlement credit. Pohl is prevailing party entitled to TUTSA attorney fees (§ 134A.005). Exemplary damages need not be reduced."
552,68,VII. Great-Weight-and-Preponderance Arguments Meritless,"Kassab makes four-sentence effort without discussing specific evidence. Heavy burden (Harding v. Lewis). Court should not substitute its evaluation for jury's (Home Ins. Co. v. Garcia). Jury heard testimonial and documentary evidence and chose to accept it. As to exemplary damages: evidence of malice was overwhelming — Kassab secretly purchased files under phony expert agreement, filed multiple unsuccessful grievances and lawsuits, publicized dismissed grievance to TX AG, Harris County DA, Houston Chronicle, Texas Lawyer, and State Bar candidate. Kassab refused to acknowledge wrongdoing even after federal judge found he purchased files. Jury rejected Kassab's 'vigilante justice' theory."
553,68,VIII. Conclusion,Requests denial of Motion to Modify and any other relief to which Pohl is entitled.