Core Laboratories v. Spectrum Tracer Services LLC et al

Filing 590

ORDER denying 580 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and clarifying its ruling on Faurot's Motion In Limine (as more fully set out). Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 3/23/2016. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CORE LABORATORIES LP,
Plaintiff,
v.
SPECTRUM TRACER SERVICES,
L.L.C., STEVE FAUROT, and
KELLY BRYSON,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-11-1157-M

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, filed March 21, 2016. On
March 22, 2016, during the trial in this matter, the Court heard oral argument from the parties
regarding plaintiff’s motion. Based on the plaintiff’s motion and arguments at trial, the Court
makes its determination.
Plaintiff moves this Court to reconsider its ruling concerning defendant Steve Faurot’s
(“Faurot”) Motion In Limine seeking to preclude any testimony regarding whether defendants’
conduct in this matter was “right,” “wrong,” “ethical,” or “unethical.” Plaintiff specifically
contends that the Court’s proposed jury instructions regarding improper means places the
rightness or ethicality of defendants’ behavior at issue in this matter and, therefore, plaintiff
should be allowed to present evidence to prove the element of improper means. 1 Defendants
1

The Court has conducted two jury instruction conferences with the parties thus far, and
the parties have not objected to the Court’s proposed jury instruction of Misappropriation of
Trade Secrets – Improper Means, which states:
A person discovers another’s trade secrets through improper means
by acting below the generally accepted standards of commercial
morality and reasonable conduct. Improper means of acquiring
another’s trade secret include theft, fraud, breach of confidence,
and other means either wrongful in themselves or wrongful under
the circumstances of the case. For defendants to have discovered a

Spectrum Tracer Services, L.L.C. and Steve Faurot (collectively, “Defendants”) contend that
whether any alleged trade secrets were discovered through improper means is to be determined
by the jury. Defendants specifically contend that allowing a lay person to testify as to whether
Defendants’ conduct was right or wrong or ethical or unethical would confuse the jury as to
plaintiff’s burden of proof and be highly prejudicial.
Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, and having considered the arguments
at trial, the Court finds it is appropriate to clarify its ruling on Faurot’s Motion In Limine.
Plaintiff is not precluded from presenting evidence to meet the element of improper means, the
Court only precludes plaintiff from using highly prejudicial terms that have the potential to
confuse the jury as to plaintiff’s burden of proof. Specifically, plaintiff may present evidence that
Defendants’ actions fell below the generally accepted standards of commercial morality and
reasonable conduct; however, the Court finds that to the extent plaintiff can present this evidence
without referring to the propriety of Defendants’ conduct it should do so. Further, the Court finds
that in order to limit the potential for prejudice against Defendants, or jury confusion as to
plaintiff’s burden of proof, the Court will provide the following limiting jury instruction for
witnesses presented by video deposition addressing this matter:
As the jury, you may consider the witnesses’ testimony regarding
what are generally accepted standards in acquiring trade secrets or
property. The witnesses are not offering a legal or expert opinion,
and, therefore, you should disregard the witnesses’ opinion as to
whether defendants’ actions fell below these generally accepted
standards.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration [docket no. 580] and CLARIFIES its ruling on Faurot’s Motion In Limine as

trade secret by improper means, defendants must have known or
had reason to know that the information was a trade secret.
2

follows: plaintiff may introduce evidence as to whether Defendants acted below the generally
accepted standard of commercial morality and reasonable conduct; however, to the extent
possible, plaintiff should refrain from introducing evidence referencing the propriety of
Defendants’ conduct.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of March, 2016.

3