theory_id,filing_id,theory,party,role,basis
56,7,Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA/Anti-SLAPP) — Right of Free Speech (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 27.001(3)),Kassab,defense,Pohl's lawsuit targets communications made in connection with matters of public concern — barratry lawsuits and grievances discussing illegal attorney conduct; legal services constitute 'services in the marketplace'
57,7,TCPA — Right to Petition (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 27.001(4)),Kassab,defense,Filing barratry lawsuits and State Bar grievances are communications made in or about judicial and governmental proceedings
58,7,TCPA — Right of Association (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 27.001(2)),Kassab,defense,Kassab joined with his clients to collectively pursue their common interest in bringing barratry claims against Pohl
62,7,Failure to Establish Conversion — Lack of Ownership,Kassab,defense,"Precision Marketing, not Pohl, owned the client lists and marketing information according to Favre's testimony"
63,7,Failure to Establish TUTSA Claim — Not Trade Secrets,Kassab,defense,Client names and addresses are publicly known and not trade secrets; Kassab reasonably believed Precision Marketing owned the materials
91,10,Evidentiary Objection — Defective Affidavit (Lack of Personal Knowledge),Kassab,defense,Shepherd's affidavit fails to meet requirements of Tex. R. Evid. 602 because it is not based on personal knowledge and does not state facts are true and correct — perjury does not attach
92,10,"Evidentiary Objection — Failed Business Records Foundation (Tex. R. Evid. 803(6), 902(10))",Kassab,defense,Shepherd fails to establish all six elements required for business records exception; fails to show he is custodian of records; failed to provide requisite notice
93,10,Evidentiary Objection — Hearsay Upon Hearsay,Kassab,defense,All documents attached to the Shepherd affidavit are inadmissible hearsay upon hearsay
94,10,Evidentiary Objection — Conclusory Affidavit (No Evidence as Matter of Law),Kassab,defense,"Pohl's declaration paragraphs 3-9 contain only conclusions without underlying facts, which do not raise fact issues and are incompetent evidence"
95,10,Client Ownership of Files (Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof'l Conduct 1.15(d)),Kassab,defense,"Attorney files belong to the client, not the attorney; Pohl has no ownership claim over client files; attorney is agent of client"
96,10,Lack of Standing — Pohl Never Owned Subject Documents,Kassab,defense,"Documents came from Precision Marketing Group (owned by Favre), not Pohl; even if they were Pohl's legal files, client files belong to clients; Pohl lacks standing to sue for conversion or trade secret theft"
97,10,TCPA Commercial Exception Inapplicable (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 27.010(b)),Kassab,defense,Pohl has not proven all four Castleman elements; purchasing marketing lists is not a commercial transaction involving legal services; Kassab is not primarily engaged in purchasing marketing lists; party asserting exemption bears burden of proving applicability
100,11,Designation of Responsible Third Parties,Kassab,defense,"Billy Shepherd, Walker, Seymour, and Ladner are the sole or proximate cause of any damages alleged by Pohl; Shepherd failed to protect Pohl's interests in Federal Litigation settlement; the runners sold and transferred all property to Favre"
120,12,Designation of Responsible Third Parties,Kassab,defense,"Shepherd, Walker, Seymour, and Ladner are sole or proximate cause of Pohl's damages; enhanced with Shepherd's knowledge of pre-settlement document transfers to third parties including Kassab"
138,13,Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) — Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ch. 27,Kassab,defense,"Kassab argues Pohl's lawsuit is based on, related to, and in response to rights of free speech, petition, and association, and should be dismissed under the TCPA"
157,18,Evidentiary Objections — Conclusory Affidavits as No Evidence,Kassab,defense,Conclusory affidavits do not raise fact issues and are incompetent evidence as a matter of law; statements must provide underlying facts to support conclusions; Pohl's Declaration paragraphs 4-10 all fail this standard
158,18,Evidentiary Objections — Hearsay,Kassab,defense,"Statements by third parties (Ladner's admissions, Precision's expressed understanding) are inadmissible hearsay under Tex. R. Evid. 801(c)"
159,18,Evidentiary Objections — Lack of Personal Knowledge and Authentication,Kassab,defense,"Pohl was not a party to the agreement or email, was not present at execution, and provides no basis for authenticating Exhibits 1-2; affidavit must show competency under Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(f)"
165,19,Traditional Summary Judgment,Kassab,defense,Kassab moved for traditional summary judgment; denied by the court
176,20,Responsible Third Party Designation — Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.004,Kassab,defense,"Third parties including Shepherd, Walker, Seymour, Ladner, Dona Pohl, Jaimes, Talley, Santana, and their entities are the sole or proximate cause of any damages"
196,23,Res Judicata Inapplicability — Changed Material Facts (Marino doctrine),Kassab,defense,"Res judicata does not apply when material facts have changed; Section 16.069 was not an available defense in prior litigation, constituting a change in legal rights; also logically inconsistent for Pohl to argue both different transaction (for § 16.069) and same transaction (for res judicata)"
197,23,Judicial Estoppel Against Pohl,Kassab,defense,Pohl argued to the Texas Supreme Court that the Assignments were valid (seeking dismissal of Brumfield and Gandy appeals) but argues here they are invalid; judicial estoppel precludes such inconsistent positions under Ferguson
199,23,Unclean Hands Against Pohl's Equitable Arguments,Kassab,defense,Pohl committed felony barratry and cannot invoke equitable considerations to void the Assignments; one who seeks equity must come with clean hands (Omohundro)
200,23,Ethical Rules Cannot Void Otherwise Valid Contracts,Kassab,defense,"Under Wright v. Sydow and M.A. Mills v. Kotts, a violation of Disciplinary Rules does not void an otherwise valid contract; Rule 1.08(h) specifically allows liens to secure fees"
207,26,Proportionate Responsibility / Responsible Third Party Designation (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.011(6)),Kassab,defense,"A responsible third party is someone who caused or contributed to causing in any way the harm for which recovery of damages is sought, whether by negligent act or omission or other conduct violating an applicable legal standard"
208,26,Civil Barratry (Tex. Penal Code § 38.12),Kassab,defense,"Pohl engaged in the improper solicitation of clients through paid runners, constituting barratry which is a third-degree felony in Texas"
209,26,Failure to Safeguard Property,Kassab,defense,"Designated third parties had an agreement and/or duty to safeguard property allegedly owned by Pohl, failed to do so, and routinely placed Pohl's alleged trade secrets in the public domain"
240,30,Immunity Under Rule 17.09 of Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure,Kassab,defense,Absolute and unqualified immunity for lawsuits predicated upon the filing of a grievance or participation in the attorney disciplinary system. Pohl admits claims are predicated on grievance filing.
241,30,Judicial Proceedings Privilege,Kassab,defense,Absolute privilege covering statements in judicial proceedings and communications preliminary to proposed proceedings. Extends beyond defamation when damages flow from litigation communications. Covers pre-suit solicitation letters and barratry litigation.
242,30,Attorney Immunity (Youngkin / Taylor v. Tolbert),Kassab,defense,"Attorney immune from liability to nonclients for conduct within scope of representation, even if alleged criminal or wrongful. TUTSA does not expressly abrogate the defense. Taylor (2022) requires reconsideration of court's prior denial."
243,30,Statute of Limitations (TUTSA 3-year; Conversion 2-year; Conspiracy derivative),Kassab,defense,"Misappropriation discovered by Pohl no later than July 2014; alternatively May 2015 letters. Suit filed August 28, 2018. TUTSA expressly precludes continuing tort theories (§ 16.010(b)). Subsequent use/sale does not restart clock. Conspiracy shares accrual of underlying tort."
244,30,Conclusive Negation — No Trade Secret (Failure to Maintain Secrecy),Kassab,defense,"Pohl failed to take reasonable measures to keep information secret — no confidentiality agreements with runners, information freely shared, no protective measures despite knowing of dissemination. Incorporates Nicholson Motion."
245,30,Conclusive Negation — No Ownership,Kassab,defense,"Client files are property of clients under Texas law (In re McCann, In re George). Marketing lists belonged to Precision as its work product (Favre testimony). TUTSA requires ownership (Title Source v. HouseCanary). Conversion requires title or right of possession (Catania)."
246,30,Unlawful Acts Rule / Illegality Bar,Kassab,defense,"Texas public policy prohibits recovery for damages inextricably intertwined with illegal acts. Pohl committed barratry (third-degree felony) and unauthorized practice of law in Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, and Florida. Cannot prove ownership or damages without referencing illegal activity."
247,30,Improper Damages — American Rule on Attorney's Fees,Kassab,defense,"Attorney's fees from prior litigation not recoverable as damages absent statute or contract (Tony Gullo Motors). Texas Supreme Court has not adopted 'tort of another' exception. Even if exception existed, Pohl is not wholly innocent. TUTSA damages limited to lost profits, unjust enrichment, reasonable royalty."
255,32,Abatement Pending Related Proceedings,Kassab,defense,A court may exercise sound discretion to abate proceedings to await a relevant ruling from another proceeding (Kallinen v. City of Houston). Abatement required when damage theories remain fluid until underlying litigations conclude (In re Tex. Collegiate Baseball). Also required when claims could be rendered moot by outcome of underlying proceedings (U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Millard).
256,32,Unlawful Acts Bar / Illegality Defense,Kassab,defense,"Texas public policy prohibits a plaintiff from recovering damages from his own illegal acts (Andrew Shebay v. Bishop). If Cheatham establishes barratry, Pohl's claims are barred and Kassab's illegality, unclean hands, and other affirmative defenses are definitively established."
257,33,Work Product Privilege,Kassab,defense,"Communications between Kassab, Montague, and Nicholson are work product because litigation against Pohl was anticipated no later than January 2015; they began discussing litigation in late 2014 and circulated a joint venture agreement by January 15, 2015"
258,33,Attorney-Client Privilege,Kassab,defense,Communications with barratry clients are privileged as attorney-client communications made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services in pursuit of barratry claims against Pohl
259,33,Confidentiality under Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct,Kassab,defense,"Communications between co-counsel (Kassab, Montague, Nicholson) and with clients are confidential under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct"
289,38,Abatement for pending related litigation,Kassab,defense,Kassab argues Cheatham case outcome will impact his illegality defense and that Pohl is still incurring damages
321,43,Specific Denial of Conditions Precedent,Kassab,defense,Kassab specifically denies that all conditions precedent regarding Pohl's conversion and trade secrets claims were performed or occurred prior to filing suit
324,43,Proportionate Responsibility / Responsible Third Parties,Kassab,defense,"Walker, Ladner, Seymour, Shepherd, Dona Pohl, Jaimes, Talley, and Santana caused or contributed to causing Pohl's alleged harm under Chapter 33, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.011(6)"
325,44,Proportionate Responsibility — Responsible Third Party Designation,Kassab,defense,"Under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.004 and § 33.011(6), persons who caused or contributed to causing harm may be designated as responsible third parties for fault apportionment. Notice-pleading standard applies. Court 'shall grant' leave if pleading is sufficient under § 33.004(f)."
326,45,Proportionate Responsibility — Late RTP Designation with Good Cause,Kassab,defense,"Under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.004(a), court may allow designation within 60 days of trial for good cause; Pohl's dismissal of Favre and Precision 14 days before trial constitutes good cause"
327,45,Reliance on Representations of Ownership / No Improper Means,Kassab,defense,"Kassab could not have misappropriated trade secrets by improper means because Favre and Precision represented they owned all materials, and Kassab relied on those representations (para 21)"
338,47,Proportionate responsibility / Responsible Third Party designation under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.004,Kassab,defense,Kassab seeks to designate eight individuals as responsible third parties to reduce his proportionate share of liability
352,48,No-evidence summary judgment — Conversion,Kassab,defense,"No evidence of: ownership/possession, unauthorized control, demand and refusal, damages."
353,48,No-evidence summary judgment — TUTSA,Kassab,defense,"No evidence of: trade secret ownership (lawyers don't own client files), misappropriation, proximate cause damages, reasonable measures to keep secret, willful/malicious intent."
354,48,No-evidence summary judgment — Conspiracy,Kassab,defense,"No evidence of: combination, object, meeting of minds, unlawful overt acts, proximate damages."
355,49,Abatement pending related barratry litigation (Cheatham case),Kassab,defense,"This case should be abated because the Cheatham barratry case against Pohl is still ongoing after reversal and remand, damages are not yet known, and the outcome could definitively establish Kassab's defenses"
356,49,Responsible Third Party designation under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.004,Kassab,defense,"Kassab replead his RTP motion after Judge Dollinger denied the original with leave to replead, but no ruling was entered on the supplemental motion"
357,49,Offensive use doctrine / waiver of attorney-client privilege,Kassab,defense,Pohl cannot sue for affirmative relief claiming trade secret theft (client information) while simultaneously asserting privilege to block discovery of pertinent information
372,50,No-evidence summary judgment on conversion,Kassab,defense,"No evidence of: (1) ownership or entitlement to possession, (2) unauthorized control by Kassab, (3) demand for return to Kassab, (4) refusal by Kassab, or damages (loss of use value or property value)."
373,50,No-evidence summary judgment on TUTSA violations,Kassab,defense,"No evidence of: (1) ownership of trade secret, (2) misappropriation by Kassab, (3) proximate cause damages, reasonable secrecy measures, independent economic value, rightful title, or willful/malicious intent. No evidence Pohl legally obtained the clients."
374,50,No-evidence summary judgment on civil conspiracy,Kassab,defense,"No evidence of: (1) combination of two or more persons, (2) object or course of action, (3) meeting of the minds, (4) unlawful overt acts, (5) proximate cause damages."
375,51,Responsible Third Party designation under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.004,Kassab,defense,Favre and Precision are alleged to have caused or contributed to causing the harm for which Pohl seeks damages. Pohl's own pleadings establish their potential responsibility by alleging they misappropriated and sold trade secrets to Kassab.
376,51,Proportionate responsibility under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.011(6),Kassab,defense,"Favre and Precision are persons alleged to have caused or contributed to causing 'in any way' the harm for which recovery is sought, whether by conduct violating an applicable legal standard."
395,56,Responsible Third Party designation under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.004,Kassab,defense,Court grants leave to designate nonsuited former co-defendants as responsible third parties for proportionate responsibility purposes
396,57,Improper use of Rule 166(g) pretrial conference,Kassab,defense,Rule 166(g) should not be used to determine merits of controverted issues — it is a tool for disposing of issues founded on admitted or undisputed facts. Pohl previously sought summary judgment on these defenses but withdrew; this is an improper backdoor attempt.
397,57,"TUTSA ownership requires rightful, legal, or equitable title (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 134A.002(3-a))",Kassab,defense,"If Pohl acquired trade secrets through barratry, he cannot demonstrate rightful ownership. A person cannot own or enforce rights in a trade secret for information about ongoing illegal activities. A person who obtains property by illegal means acquires no title."
398,57,Willful and malicious misappropriation — relevance of Kassab's state of mind,Kassab,defense,Kassab's belief about Pohl's barratry is relevant to negating willful and malicious misappropriation element required for TUTSA fees and exemplary damages under §§ 134A.004(b) and 134A.005(3)
399,57,Proportionate responsibility — Pohl's barratry as contributing cause,Kassab,defense,"Under § 33.001, a claimant may not recover if his percentage of responsibility exceeds 50 percent. Under § 33.003(a)(1), the trier of fact must consider whether Pohl caused or contributed to causing 'in any way' the harm. Pohl's barratry is relevant to establishing Pohl's own proportionate responsibility for his $2.4M+ in claimed damages."
400,57,Tort of another / third-party litigation damages — requires innocent party,Kassab,defense,"The tort of another theory has never been embraced by the Texas Supreme Court and was flatly rejected by the Houston Court of Appeals. To the extent it applies, it is an equitable doctrine requiring the claimant to be an innocent party; barratry evidence negates Pohl's innocence."
415,59,Non-unanimous jury finding bars exemplary damages (Tex. R. Civ. P. 292; Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 41.003(d)),Kassab,defense,"Exemplary damages can only be awarded if jury was unanimous in finding both liability and amount; presiding juror did not sign unanimity certificate for Q17; general certificate shows ten jurors, not unanimous"
416,59,Attorneys' fees not recoverable as 'actual loss' under TUTSA (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 134A.004),Kassab,defense,"TUTSA 'actual loss' is limited to lost profits, lost customers, lost market share per uniform interpretation; attorneys' fees in other litigation are not actual damages; pre-TUTSA Texas law likewise limited damages to lost profits, investor value, development costs, royalties"
417,59,"Tort of another doctrine not viable in Texas; even if viable, requires wholly innocent plaintiff",Kassab,defense,"Never embraced by Texas Supreme Court; flatly rejected by Fourteenth Court of Appeals; multiple intermediate courts have refused to adopt it; jury found in Q3 that Pohl's wrongful conduct contributed to injury, negating wholly innocent requirement"
418,59,Grievance immunity under Tex. R. Disc. P. 17.09,Kassab,defense,"Absolute and unqualified immunity for persons filing grievances bars recovery of $112,286 in attorneys' fees for defending grievances (Q7(1)(e) and (f))"
419,59,Election of remedies / prohibition of double recovery under TUTSA (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 134A.004),Kassab,defense,"Fair market value ($250,000) and avoided development costs ($200,000) are duplicative measures of the same loss; a buyer acquiring secrets at fair market value necessarily avoids development costs; Pohl must elect one"
420,59,TUTSA preemption of conspiracy (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 134A.007),Kassab,defense,TUTSA displaces conflicting tort law providing civil remedies for misappropriation; conspiracy is a conflicting remedy per VEST Safety and weight of Fifth Circuit district court authority
421,59,Chapter 33 proportionate responsibility applies to conspiracy (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.002),Kassab,defense,"Civil conspiracy is an intentional tort (Firestone Steel) subject to Chapter 33; conspiracy is not listed among exemptions; courts conclude proportionate responsibility rather than joint and several liability applies (Seven Seas, Pemex)"
422,59,Indirect misappropriation requires direct misappropriation by upstream party — Precision's exoneration breaks chain,Kassab,defense,"Jury found Precision did not misappropriate (Q2(a)(3), Q2(b)(3)) and assigned 0% fault (Q4). TUTSA § 134A.002(3)(B)(ii)(a) requires knowing acquisition from someone who used improper means. Since Precision was exonerated, daisy-chain of indirect misappropriation is broken."
431,61,Burden on plaintiff to secure unanimous finding for exemplary damages (United Scaffolding v. Levine; Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 41.003(b)),Kassab,defense,Defendant has no obligation to complain about plaintiff's omission; burden to secure proper findings is on plaintiff; burden of proving exemplary damages may not be shifted to defendant; non-unanimous Q17 bars exemplary damages under Redwine
432,61,No authority supports attorney's fees from other litigation as TUTSA actual damages,Kassab,defense,"No court in any jurisdiction has awarded attorney's fees from other litigation as actual damages for a trade secret claim; Pohl's out-of-state cases concerned lost profits/fees/commissions, not litigation fees; Akin Gump concerned malpractice plaintiff, which Pohl is not"
433,61,Clean hands doctrine bars equitable tort of another remedy (Frazier v. Havens),Kassab,defense,Jury found Pohl engaged in wrongful conduct (Q3); one found to have engaged in 'wrongful conduct' does not have clean hands for equitable remedy regardless of Q4's 0% fault allocation
434,61,TUTSA preemption of conspiracy per Reynolds v. Sanchez Oil & Gas Corp.,Kassab,defense,First Court of Appeals held TUTSA preempts claims based on misappropriation of trade secrets under plain language of TUTSA; Pohl's conspiracy claim (Q15) is based entirely on the misappropriation conduct found in Q2
435,61,Precision's exoneration precludes Kassab's liability as a matter of law,Kassab,defense,"If no misappropriation occurred when information passed from Pohl to Precision, no one downstream could have misappropriated; plaintiff had burden to secure proper findings (Levine); defendant not required to 'forfeit a winning hand'"
447,64,Comparative Fault / Contributory Negligence,Kassab,defense,"Jury found Pohl's wrongful conduct contributed to injury (Q3 Yes) but assigned Pohl 0% fault in Q4. Kassab assigned 70%, co-defendants 10% each, Precision 0%."
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"
463,66,New trial — newly discovered evidence of witness tampering (Tex. R. Civ. P. 324(b)(1)),Kassab,defense,"Walker confession of 30% promise, coached depositions, reversed testimony on seminal issues"
464,66,Witness tampering (Tex. Pen. Code § 36.05(a)),Kassab,defense,Pohl conferred benefit (30% of judgment) on witnesses to testify falsely
465,66,"Aggravated perjury (Tex. Pen. Code §§ 37.02, 37.03)",Kassab,defense,Walker/Ladner made false statements under oath with intent to deceive based on 30% promise
466,66,Factual insufficiency — trade secret ownership (Q1),Kassab,defense,Contracts owned by clients; lists created by Precision/Williamson; no independent economic value; no reasonable secrecy measures
467,66,Jury charge error — Q2 broad-form question (Crown Life v. Casteel),Kassab,defense,Q2 included unpled direct misappropriation theory and overly broad 'improper means' definition beyond theft
468,66,Factual insufficiency — misappropriation (Q2),Kassab,defense,Precision finding breaks chain; no evidence Kassab knew information acquired by improper means; certifications of ownership
469,66,Jury charge error — Q3 wrongful conduct untied to charge,Kassab,defense,"Q3 finding not connected to proportionate responsibility, privilege, or any other question"