Summary
This Eighth Circuit opinion affirms a district court's judgment in favor of Crabar/GBF, Inc. following a jury verdict that found defendants liable for misappropriating trade secrets, breaching contracts, and tortiously interfering with business relationships. The appellate court addresses several challenges, including the waiver of contractual defenses due to omission from the final pretrial order, the enforceability of employee confidentiality agreements, the sufficiency of evidence supporting trade secret claims under a general verdict, and the admissibility of an expert's lost-profits calculations under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The court concludes that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's findings and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling on procedural and evidentiary matters.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether WPCO waived its § 8.6 contractual defense by failing to raise it at the final pre‑trial conference.
- Whether the confidentiality agreements signed by former employees constitute enforceable contracts.
- Whether the alleged customer lists, spreadsheets, and die‑template files qualify as protectable trade secrets under the DTSA.
- Whether the general‑verdict rule requires a new trial when the jury was not asked to separate the trade‑secret theories.
- Whether the district court erred in admitting the plaintiff’s damages expert testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 702.
- Whether the jury’s awards violate the prohibition on double recovery.
Holdings
- The district court did not err; WPCO waived the argument because it was not included in the final pre‑trial order.
- The agreements are enforceable contracts; the district court correctly denied the defendants’ motions for judgment as a matter of law.
- The jury’s verdict is supported; the information meets the DTSA definition of a trade secret.
- The district court did not err; the general‑verdict rule does not apply because the defendants did not preserve the issue at trial.
- The district court acted within its discretion; the expert testimony was admissible.
- The district court correctly found no double recovery; the jury’s separate awards were based on distinct theories and evidence.
Key quotations
““A ‘trade secret’ is information that ‘the owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep . . . secret’ and that ‘derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by, another person who can obtain economic value from the disclosure or use of the information.’””
Factual background
WPCO sold its folder business to Crabar in 2013, agreeing to transfer customer lists and trade secrets and to keep that information confidential. After the sale, WPCO relaunched a folder line using spreadsheets and die‑template files retained by former Crabar employees. The jury found the defendants liable for trade‑secret misappropriation, breach of the asset purchase agreement, and tortious interference, awarding over $5 million in damages, later reduced to about $4 million by the district court.
Procedural history
The district court tried the case, returned a jury verdict finding all defendants liable for trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and tortious interference, and entered a final amended judgment of roughly $4,000,000. Defendants appealed several pre‑trial and post‑trial orders, including a motion for judgment as a matter of law, a new‑trial motion, and the admission of expert testimony.