Kansas Supreme Court - 99536 â Wolfe Electric, Inc. v. Duckworth
Kansas Supreme Court - 99536 â Wolfe Electric, Inc. v. Duckworth
Kansas Supreme Court - 99536 â Wolfe Electric, Inc. v. Duckworth
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
"2) using or attempting to use <strong>Wolfe</strong> <strong>Electric</strong>'s trade secrets and confidential<br />
information to solicit or attempt to solicit conveyor pizza oven sales to <strong>Wolfe</strong> <strong>Electric</strong>'s<br />
active or inactive customers;<br />
"3) using or attempting to use <strong>Wolfe</strong> <strong>Electric</strong>'s trade secrets and confidential<br />
information to solicit or attempt to solicit business from <strong>Wolfe</strong> <strong>Electric</strong>'s vendors and<br />
suppliers; and<br />
"4) usurping corporate opportunities from <strong>Wolfe</strong> <strong>Electric</strong>." (Emphasis added.)<br />
This error is repeated verbatim on the jury verdict form, with the jury expressly<br />
awarding $50,000 for "loss of trade secrets and confidential business information" for<br />
breach of fiduciary duty. (Emphasis added.)<br />
Instruction 3 also improperly informed the jury that <strong>Wolfe</strong> <strong>Electric</strong> could, and did,<br />
allege that Global tortiously interfered with <strong>Duckworth</strong>'s contract by, among other things,<br />
"3) inducing and encouraging Defendant <strong>Duckworth</strong> to breach his Employment<br />
Agreement by divulging <strong>Wolfe</strong> <strong>Electric</strong>'s trade secrets and confidential information."<br />
(Emphasis added.) Like the error regarding breach of fiduciary duty, this error is also<br />
repeated verbatim on the jury verdict form. In turn, the jury expressly awarded $50,000 for<br />
"loss of trade secrets and confidential business information" for tortious interference.<br />
(Emphasis added.)<br />
In summary, we have concluded the trial court was twice overly inclusive in its<br />
instructions on the claims for recovery for trade secrets and for mere confidential<br />
information. We held in Issue 1 the trial court erroneously allowed <strong>Wolfe</strong> <strong>Electric</strong> to<br />
include a request for damages under KUTSA for nontrade secrets, i.e., "confidential<br />
information." This is error because KUTSA limits recovery for trade secrets only. See, e.g.,<br />
First Advantage Background Services v. Private Eyes, 569 F. Supp. 2d 929, 942 (N.D. Cal.<br />
2008). Now we conclude in Issue 2 that the trial court also erroneously—and perhaps<br />
ironically—allowed <strong>Wolfe</strong> <strong>Electric</strong> to include a request for damages for trade secrets under<br />
35