theory_id,filing_id,theory,party,role,basis
448,65,No trade secret — attorney not owner of client files (In re George),Kassab,defense,"Attorney-client contracts belong to client, not lawyer; Pohl as agent has no trade secret rights in principal's property; attorney's lien is transitory interest in someone else's property"
449,65,No trade secret — no independent economic value,Kassab,defense,No evidence Pohl's information provided competitive advantage; fiduciary cannot acquire interest adverse to principal; Pohl's only interest was concealing criminal conduct
450,65,No trade secret — no reasonable secrecy measures,Kassab,defense,Contracts not privileged or confidential as matter of law; shared freely with Precision/Favre; produced in discovery without protective order; Master List on PACER for six years
451,65,No evidence of misappropriation — chain broken by Precision finding,Kassab,defense,Jury found Precision did not misappropriate (Q2); Precision's exoneration breaks chain of indirect misappropriation to Kassab; Favre certified to Kassab that information belonged to Precision
452,65,Statute of limitations (3-year TUTSA SOL under § 16.010),Kassab,defense,Cause of action accrued June 2014 (Precision theft) or May 2015 (sale to Favre); suit filed August 2018 — more than 3 years; continuing misappropriation is single cause of action; conspiracy doesn't restart clock (Agar Corp.)
453,65,Unlawful acts doctrine,Kassab,defense,Jury found Pohl's wrongful conduct contributed to injury (Q3 Yes); doctrine bars recovery when illegal act is inextricably intertwined with claim; applies outside personal injury context including attorney misconduct cases
454,65,"Privilege to disclose trade secrets (Tex. R. Evid. 507(a), 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b), common law)",Kassab,defense,"Three privilege sources: evidence rule (nondisclosure conceals fraud), DTSA (reporting suspected violation), common-law (disclosures relevant to crime/public concern). Kassab disclosed to report Pohl's barratry."
455,65,Grievance immunity (Tex. R. Disc. P. 17.09),Kassab,defense,Absolute and unqualified immunity for filing grievances extending to all actions at law or equity; Pohl's claims predicated on Kassab's grievance filings; jury awarded grievance defense fees as damages
456,65,Judicial proceedings privilege,Kassab,defense,Absolute privilege for communications in judicial proceedings and communications preliminary to contemplated proceedings; Pohl's damages flow from Kassab's solicitation letters and barratry litigation; applies regardless of claim label
457,65,Attorney immunity,Kassab,defense,No right of recovery against attorney for conduct in discharge of duties; focuses on kind of conduct not alleged wrongfulness; even criminal conduct not excepted; TUTSA doesn't expressly repudiate; Kassab's client acquisition and lawsuit filing fell within scope
458,65,Unrecoverable damages — attorney fees not actual loss under TUTSA,Kassab,defense,"TUTSA actual loss means lost profits/customers/market share, not attorney fees from other litigation; consistent with pre-TUTSA Texas law and sister-state interpretations; tort of another exception not adopted in Texas and requires wholly innocent plaintiff"
459,65,No evidence of actual loss — fair market value and development costs,Kassab,defense,"No market value testimony for $250,000 Q7(2) award — only intrinsic value; purchase price alone insufficient; no testimony about development costs for $200,000 Q7(3) award"
460,65,No causation — Pohl's barratry was sole proximate cause,Kassab,defense,No evidence Pohl would not have been sued absent Kassab's conduct; Pohl's barratry was sole cause; clients' decisions to sue were superseding cause; Kassab merely represented clients
461,65,TUTSA preemption of conspiracy claim (§ 134A.007),Kassab,defense,Conspiracy claim based entirely on alleged misappropriation; TUTSA displaces conflicting tort remedies; should eliminate joint and several liability
462,65,"Non-unanimous exemplary damages finding (Tex. R. Civ. P. 292, § 41.003(d))",Kassab,defense,"Q17 (willful/malicious) was predicate for Q19 (exemplary damages); presiding juror did not sign Q17 unanimity certificate though signed for Q2 and Q19; general verdict was 10 jurors, not unanimous; exemplary damages require unanimous finding"