Filing Sections
Data license: Public court records
8 rows where filing_id = 60
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
| section_id ▼ | filing_id | heading | summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 450 | 60 60 | Overview | Summarizes five counter-arguments: (1) jury unanimously answered Q17 based on court's instructions; (2) attorneys' fees from separate lawsuits are recoverable actual losses under TUTSA; (3) both actual loss and unjust enrichment are authorized by TUTSA; (4) conspiracy is not preempted by TUTSA and published Texas appellate caselaw rejects Chapter 33 preemption; (5) Precision's non-liability is consistent with Kassab's liability because Kassab obtained secrets from Favre, not Precision. |
| 451 | 60 60 | I. The Jury properly awarded Pohl exemplary damages | Three arguments: (1) Jury presumed to have followed instructions requiring unanimity for Q17; jury answered Q17 'Yes' and then answered Q19 (predicated on unanimous Q17), proving unanimity. (2) Stover v. ADM Milling directly on point — exemplary damages upheld despite predicate questions not separately certified as unanimous, because jury later unanimously answered questions predicated on those answers. Bruce v. Oscar Renda distinguishes Redwine — general non-unanimity certificate is not in conflict with exemplary damages when not all of the verdict needed to be unanimous. (3) Kassab waived any conflict by not objecting before jury was discharged per USAA Texas Lloyds, Fleet v. Fleet, Continental Cas., Burbage. Bryan v. Papalia illustrates proper procedure — trial court sent jury back to clarify unanimity certificate. |
| 452 | 60 60 | II. Pohl is entitled to recover his actual losses as damages under TUTSA | Two sub-sections. |
| 453 | 60 60 | II.A. Pohl's TUTSA damages are recoverable | TUTSA 'actual loss' is broad and encompasses consequential losses. Flexible and imaginative approach applies to trade secret damages (Sw. Energy). Attorneys' fees from separate proceedings — not the same lawsuit — can constitute actual damages (Akin Gump). Kassab conflates same-lawsuit fees (barred) with separate-proceeding fees (recoverable). Kassab's citations are distinguished: Lacore, O'Neal, Woodhaven concern same-lawsuit fees; Tana Oil and Tex. Mut. Ins. did not concern attorney fees recovery; Martin-Simon was effectively overruled by Akin Gump. Out-of-state authority supports broad definition of actual loss (World Wide Prosthetic, Dunsmore). Alternatively, tort of another doctrine applies per Dixon v. Chang. Pohl disputes 'wholly innocent' requirement — footnote 10 argues Kassab's own cited cases lack this element, citing Stanton law review article. Regardless, jury assigned 0% fault to Pohl in Q4 (proportionate responsibility tied to trade secrets); Q3 (wrongful conduct) was not tied to trade secrets — jury asked if Q3 should be answered even without trade secret finding, and Kassab's counsel agreed to that instruction. |
| 454 | 60 60 | II.B. Rule 17.09 not applicable | This lawsuit is not predicated on Kassab filing a grievance but on trade secret misappropriation. Rule 17.09 does not apply. Issue previously briefed and decided against Kassab. Incorporates Pohl's Rule 166(g) Motion briefing (filed Nov. 30, 2022). |
| 455 | 60 60 | III. Pohl's requested damages are not improperly overlapping | TUTSA explicitly authorizes recovery of both actual loss and unjust enrichment 'not taken into account in computing actual loss' (§ 134A.004). Jury was specifically instructed not to award the same sum for the same loss. Court must presume jury followed instructions (Columbia Rio Grande). Market value compensated forward loss (value destroyed by improper disclosure); development costs compensated past unjust enrichment. Jury could have viewed these as separate. |
| 456 | 60 60 | IV. Texas continues to recognize conspirators are jointly and severally liable | No binding Texas precedent holds conspiracy preempted by TUTSA. Kassab's citations are unpublished federal cases. Published Texas appellate caselaw rejects the premise that Chapter 33 supersedes conspiracy's joint and several liability: Guillory v. Dietrich (Dallas 2020) and Stephens v. Three Finger (Eastland 2019). Conspiracy is not an independent remedy — it merely makes damages joint and several, no more objectionable than proportionate responsibility (which Kassab does not dispute TUTSA permits). Trial courts continue to submit TUTSA and conspiracy together (Whitlock). Kassab's own TUTSA expert (Cleveland article, footnote 11) assumes conspiracy can exist alongside TUTSA. |
| 457 | 60 60 | V. The Jury's misappropriation findings are consistent with each other | Threshold: Kassab waived inconsistency objection by not raising it before jury discharge (Bryan, Bruce). Substantively: (1) Kassab obtained trade secrets from Favre through the November 2016 agreement, not from Precision — jury found Favre bore responsibility for misappropriation, fatal to Kassab's chain-of-liability argument. Kassab designated Precision as a responsible third party. (2) Jury could find Precision obtained info lawfully (while working for Pohl) and separately find Kassab's post-acquisition 'use' or 'disclosure' constituted misappropriation. |
Advanced export
JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object
CREATE TABLE filing_sections (
section_id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY AUTOINCREMENT,
filing_id INTEGER REFERENCES filings(filing_id),
heading TEXT,
summary TEXT
);