Part 3 of 3 in my series

Fivers, you may be wondering why I have not yet reported on the Texas legislature’s recent amendments of the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act. I like trade secrets law. I like litigation. And I like making fun of whatever the Texas legislature does. So what gives?

Well, three things. First, you can already find other good reports on this topic, like Leiza Dolghih’s blog post here. Second, the recent changes to the Texas trade secrets statute, while important, are not that big of a deal. And third, I predict that recent court decisions applying the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) are going to be a bigger deal for Texas trade secrets litigation.

That’s because filing a motion to dismiss under the TCPA is likely to become a routine move by defendants in Texas trade secrets lawsuits.

Texas courts have held that the TCPA applies to claims based on disclosure of alleged trade secrets

So how did we get here? To recap Part 1 and Part 2:

• The TCPA is the Texas “anti-SLAPP” statute intended to protect the “little guy” from nuisance litigation filed in retaliation for exercising free speech rights.
• The TCPA allows the defendant to file a motion to dismiss that stays discovery and requires the plaintiff to offer evidence proving each element of its claims.
• The purpose of the statute is to protect constitutional rights, but the Texas Supreme Court has instructed Texas courts to apply the “plain meaning” of the text, which is much broader.
• In Elite Auto Body, the Austin Court of Appeals followed the Texas Supreme Court’s instructions and held that the TCPA applied to a company’s claim that its former employees communicated the company’s confidential information and trade secrets to a competitor.[1]

In Part 1, I explained how this issue provides a sort of case study for the “textualist” theory of statutory interpretation, which has received some airplay recently with Neal Gorsuch taking the Scalia seat on the Supreme Court. In Part 2, I hypothesized that the holding in Elite Auto Body is inconsistent with the legislature’s intent and suggested that this illustrates a problem with strict textualism.

But if you’re a lawyer or a party in a trade secrets lawsuit, you don’t care about all that. You want to know what Elite Auto Body means for your lawsuit.

Will it become routine for defendants in Texas trade secrets lawsuits to file motions to dismiss under the TCPA?

It seems likely that defendants in trade secrets lawsuits will now routinely file motions to dismiss under the TCPA. First, because Elite Auto Body says they can. Second, because it will usually be good strategy.

The crux of the Elite Auto Body decision was the statute’s broad definition of the “exercise of the right of association” as “a communication between individuals who join together to collectively express, promote, pursue, or defend common interests.”[2]

The court found that the plaintiff alleged two kinds of communications falling under the statute’s broad definitions: (1) communications between the departing employees and the second employer disclosing confidential information or trade secrets; and (2) communications with employees of the first employer to induce them to work for the second employer.[3]

So, in any case where the plaintiff alleges either (1) communication of the plaintiff’s trade secrets or (2) solicitation of the plaintiff’s employees, the defendants have the option to file a motion to dismiss under Elite Auto Body. I will even provide this Form Motion to Dismiss you can use if you want.[4]

Filing a motion to dismiss will often have benefits for the defendant:

• The motion will take the wind out of the plaintiff’s sails by immediately staying discovery until the court rules on the motion.[5]
• It requires the plaintiff to respond with evidence of each element of its claims.[6] This will force the plaintiff to put its “cards on the table” early in the case.
• In some cases, it will be difficult for the plaintiff to meet its burden before it has had any meaningful discovery.

Of course, there are potential disadvantages to filing a motion to dismiss. Despite the Texas Supreme Court’s instruction to apply the plain meaning of the statute, some trial court judges will still be reluctant to dismiss trade secrets claims that do not implicate constitutional free speech rights. Fighting over the motion to dismiss will often be expensive, and if the judge denies the motion, it will tend to embolden the plaintiff, which could make settlement more difficult. Worst case, if the judge finds that the defendant’s motion was frivolous or solely intended to delay, the court can award attorneys’ fees to the plaintiff.[7]

Despite these concerns, in most cases filing an early motion to dismiss under the TCPA will be good strategy for defendants, if the plaintiff alleges “communication” of the alleged trade secrets.

But that’s a big “if.”

Will it become routine for plaintiffs to plead around the TCPA?

If it becomes routine for defendants to file a motion to dismiss in Texas trade secrets lawsuits, plaintiffs will catch on.

And Elite Auto Body suggests a solution for them. As I pointed out in Part 2, the court in Elite Auto Body said that the TCPA does not apply to allegations of using the alleged trade secrets, as opposed to communication of the trade secrets. That’s why the Austin Court of Appeals only dismissed the plaintiff’s claims in part. It did not dismiss the claims based on conduct that does not constitute “communications” as defined by the TCPA.[8]

So, as Patrick Keating suggested on his trade secrets blog here, it may become routine for plaintiffs to avoid a motion to dismiss by pleading only use of the alleged trade secrets rather than disclosure of the alleged trade secrets. (Here is a Form Original Petition that does just that.) If that happens, then case law applying the TCPA to trade secrets claims may become, as Keating says, “much ado about nothing.”

But I’m not sure this maneuver will become totally routine. First, the plaintiff doesn’t always have a basis to claim use of the trade secrets. Second, the disclosure of the trade secrets is sometimes just too good a part of the story to leave out.

In many cases, the employer will discover that an employee has taken company information and joined a competitor, but the employer will not have any direct knowledge that the employee has used the information. And it is not unusual for employees to take company information when they leave but to refrain from using it after coming to their senses (or talking to a lawyer).

In cases like that, it may be dangerous for the employer to plead that the employee has used the alleged trade secrets. The plaintiff must have a good-faith factual basis for the allegation. Look for more plaintiffs to plead “on information and belief” that the defendant has used the alleged trade secrets.

In other cases, the plaintiff will really want to plead disclosure of the trade secrets, because that will be the juiciest part of the story. When an employee secretly emails confidential company information to his next employer, who can resist emphasizing that fact in the lawsuit? In those situations, the plaintiff’s lawyer will have to weigh the value of pleading bad acts by the defendants against the possibility of inviting a motion to dismiss.

Or just make a federal case of it

On the other hand, the plaintiff’s lawyer can simply avoid this dilemma by filing suit in federal court under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act. All you need is a sufficient connection to interstate or foreign commerce, and any claim you would make under the Texas trade secrets statute can be made under the federal statute. And then the TCPA would not apply.

Or would it? I will let the appellate lawyers and former law review editors discuss among themselves.

____________________________________________________________

Zach Wolfe is a Texas trial lawyer who handles non-compete and trade secret litigation. His firm Fleckman & McGlynn, PLLC has offices in Austin, Houston, and The Woodlands. 

These are his opinions, not the opinions of his firm or clients, so don’t cite part of this post against him in an actual case. The provided forms are only for the convenience of other lawyers. Every case is different, so don’t rely on this post or the forms as legal advice for your case. 

[1] Elite Auto Body LLC v. Autocraft Bodywerks, Inc., No. 03-15-00064-CV, 2017 WL 1833495 (Tex. App.—Austin May 5, 2017, no pet. h.).

[2] Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 27.001(2).

[3] Elite Auto Body, 2017 WL 1833495 at *8.

[4] See my disclaimer about forms above.

[5] Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 27.003(c). Under Section 27.006(b), for good cause the court may allow “specified and limited discovery” relevant to the motion.

[6] See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 27.005(c).

[7] Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 27.009.

[8] Elite Auto Body, 2017 WL 1833495 at *9.

In Elite Auto Body v. Autocraft Bodywerks, the Austin Court of Appeals held that the Texas anti-SLAPP statute applies to a company’s claim that a former employee communicated confidential information and trade secrets to a competitor. This meant that the company was required to produce evidence to support every element of the claim at the beginning of the lawsuit—a significant burden.

This sounds like a fairly technical issue, but it’s an important development, with potentially far-reaching consequences for departing employee litigation—and other kinds of litigation. Elite Auto Body is also a great case to read if you’re fascinated by questions of statutory interpretation. And who isn’t?

Textualism vs. originalism

Interpreting the text of a statute or constitution is a fundamental challenge in the law.  The “textualist” would say that courts should apply the “plain meaning” of the text of a statute, without resort to any extrinsic sources such as the intent of the legislature or what would make better public policy.

This view probably resonates with the average “man on the street,” but in its strict form, textualism borders on the absurd.  If hard cases could really be decided by simply applying the plain text, we wouldn’t need judges schooled in the law.

Textualism is often associated with “originalism,” which is the view that a statutory or constitutional provision should be interpreted based on the original understanding of the text. But the two are not the same. In fact, originalism shows that textualism is insufficient (at least in hard cases). If the text alone were sufficient to resolve disputes, then resort to the original understanding of the text would be unnecessary.

Trade secret protection vs. freedom of speech

Let’s take an example everyone knows: the First Amendment protection of “freedom of speech.” Then let’s take a statute pertinent to the Elite Auto Body case: the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA). TUTSA provides civil remedies for “misappropriation” of “trade secrets.”[1]  Emailing your employer’s trade secrets to a competitor would be a clear violation of TUTSA.

So does TUTSA violate the First Amendment? If I can’t email my employer’s confidential information to another company, doesn’t that restrict my “freedom of speech”?

The “vulgar textualist” would say no, under the plain meaning of the First Amendment, sending an email is not “speech,” so the First Amendment doesn’t apply. But no serious person in the law, even a “textualist,” would apply such a hyper-literal interpretation. Obviously, the First Amendment is intended to protect forms of communication broader than actual “speech.”

And it is well established that there are certain categories of communication that do not enjoy full First Amendment protection: fraudulent statements, intentionally defamatory statements, communications between participants in a criminal conspiracy, just to name a few. People may disagree on the exact contours of the categories of expression that do not enjoy First Amendment protection, but no one seriously questions the basic premise that some kinds of communication are not protected (even though the premise is not derived from the “plain meaning” of the text).

Similarly, just about everyone would agree that communication of trade secrets is one of these categories. People may argue about where to draw the line on trade secret protection, but few would seriously dispute the general principle that the First Amendment allows laws that prohibit the communication of trade secrets.

With this point established, we have set the stage for the Texas anti-SLAPP statute, the recent Elite Auto Body case, and an interesting test for textualism.

The Texas anti-SLAPP statute

Texas adopted its anti-SLAPP statute in 2011. SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. The term SLAPP doesn’t actually appear in the statute, but the “anti-SLAPP” purpose of the statute is widely recognized. (For background, see A Primer on the Texas Anti-SLAPP Statute and Five Years of Anti-SLAPP in Texas.)

The idea was to give defendants the right to seek early dismissal of unfounded lawsuits that plaintiffs file to punish Texas citizens for exercising their free speech rights. When the statute applies, the defendant can require the plaintiff to produce evidence to support each element of its claims at the beginning of the lawsuit. If the plaintiff fails to meet this burden, the lawsuit gets dismissed.[2]

This is a big deal. As Texas litigators will recognize, a SLAPP motion is equivalent to a “no-evidence” motion for summary judgment. The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure allow a defendant to file a no-evidence motion for summary judgment, which places the burden on the plaintiff to come forward with evidence to support the challenged elements of its claims. If the plaintiff fails to respond with evidence, the claim gets dismissed.

That’s effectively the same thing the anti-SLAPP statute does. So why is it such a big deal? The key difference is that you can’t file a no-evidence motion for summary judgment until after the plaintiff has had adequate time for discovery.[3] This is a significant limitation.

The anti-SLAPP statute, in contrast, allows the defendant to file a motion to dismiss at the beginning of the case, before the plaintiff has had any time for discovery.[4] This is a major strategic advantage for the defendant. Often the plaintiff needs discovery in order to obtain evidence to support all of the elements of its claims. If the legislature gave defendants the right to file this kind of motion in every case, it would be a tectonic shift in the balance of power between Texas plaintiffs and defendants.

But the anti-SLAPP statute only applies to SLAPP lawsuits, right?

The problem with the anti-SLAPP statute

The problem is that it is not so easy to distinguish between a SLAPP lawsuit and an ordinary lawsuit. A SLAPP, as the term is commonly used, has two distinguishing characteristics, one going to the merits of the lawsuit and the other going to the motive behind it. First, a SLAPP lawsuit has no merit, meaning no evidence to back it up. Second, a SLAPP lawsuit is filed for an improper motive—i.e. to silence or punish the defendant by forcing the defendant to spend money defending a lawsuit.

But defendants say these things about all kinds of lawsuits. So the first problem with the anti-SLAPP statute is that it singles out one type of litigation, when the problem it purports to address applies to all kinds of litigation.

In my view, this sort of thing is generally a bad idea. I haven’t seen a compelling explanation of why defendants in SLAPP lawsuits should get to file an early motion to dismiss while defendants in other kinds of unfounded lawsuits don’t.

Of course, there is a long tradition of the Texas legislature singling out certain types of litigation for special treatment. For example, plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases have to get an expert report just to file a lawsuit, before any discovery, while plaintiffs in other cases don’t. Defendants in residential construction lawsuits have special statutory rights that defendants in other lawsuits don’t. But why? Why should special rules apply to medical malpractice lawsuits and not, say, architectural malpractice suits?

The answer is pretty obvious. You don’t have to be a political scientist or a reporter covering the Texas legislature to understand that laws like this get passed in response to pressure from interest groups seeking protection from lawsuits. That doesn’t necessarily mean that these laws are bad public policy. We could debate all day whether the limits on medical malpractice suits are good policy or not.

But it does mean that we should approach these special-interest statutes with some skepticism. The same is true of the anti-SLAPP statute. Granted, it appears that a wide range of groups from across the political spectrum backed it, but we should still ask whether it makes sense to single out one type of lawsuit for special treatment.

While it is clear that the anti-SLAPP statute singles out one type of lawsuit, it is not so clear what type of lawsuit that is. This gets to the second problem with the statute: it tries to do surgery with a meat cleaver. The “cancer” it tries to cut out is the “big guy” filing a frivolous lawsuit against the “little guy” to try to deter the little guy from exercising his First Amendment right to criticize the big guy.

The statute does say that its purpose is to safeguard constitutional rights, but the operative language of the statute–particularly the definition of the “right of association”–is much broader than that. Nothing in the statute expressly limits its reach to “big guy vs. little guy” lawsuits, or even to lawsuits involving the exercise of First Amendment rights.

Perhaps the language of the statute could be made more precise so that it cuts like a scalpel. But no, this second problem is almost unsolvable. It would be very difficult to come up with language that would apply only to “true” SLAPP lawsuits and not to ordinary lawsuits. Like obscenity, a SLAPP is hard to define with precision. You just “know it when you see it.” That doesn’t make for a good statutory definition.

Does the anti-SLAPP statute apply to trade secrets lawsuits?

And that brings us to the question presented in Elite Auto Body v. Autocraft Bodywerks.

Misappropriation of trade secrets is not protected by the First Amendment, and it does not appear that the Texas legislature had trade secrets lawsuits in mind when it passed the anti-SLAPP statute. Yet the plain language of the statute is broad enough to apply to a claim that an employee communicated a company’s trade secrets to a competitor she has joined. So, can the defendant in that kind of trade secrets case file a motion to dismiss under the statute?

Stay tuned. I’ll address that in Part 2.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Zach Wolfe is a Texas trial lawyer who handles non-compete and trade secret litigation. His firm Fleckman & McGlynn, PLLC has offices in Austin, Houston, and The Woodlands.

These are his opinions, not the opinions of his firm or clients, so don’t cite part of this post against him in an actual case. Every case is different, so don’t rely on this post as legal advice for your case.

[1] See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 134A.002-004.

[2] Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 27.001-011.

[3] Tex. R. Civ. Pro. 166a(i).

[4] The defendant must serve the anti-SLAPP motion within 60 days of service of the lawsuit. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 27.003(b). On the filing of such a motion, all discovery is suspended until the court has ruled on the motion. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 27.003(c). For good cause, the court can allow specific limited discovery relevant to the motion. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 27.006(b).

How well does the new Texas Pattern Jury Charge perform in a typical soft trade secrets case?

I recently received a mysterious package in the mail. After tearing open the cardboard, I saw a shiny new paperback in plastic shrink-wrap: the new Texas Pattern Jury Charges – Business, Consumer, Insurance & Employment (2016).

My heart raced. Yes, I already had the 2014 edition, but the 2016 edition has something new: questions and instructions on trade secret misappropriation. In the words of Joe Biden, this is a big f**ng deal!

You see, when I last tried a trade secret case to a jury, there were no Pattern Jury Charge questions for trade secrets, so we had to make up our own. That case was a typical “soft” trade secrets case.

“It’s a dirty story of a dirty man”

Soft trade secrets? Well, there are two paradigmatic types of “hard” trade secrets: secret technology and “secret sauce.” If your company develops new technology that allows you to drill for oil sideways at half the cost of your competitors, and you keep it secret, that’s a trade secret. If you have the secret formula for Coke, or the Colonel’s secret herbs and spices, those are trade secrets. Understanding why these things are trade secrets is not rocket science.

Soft trade secrets, on the other hand, are the type of information almost every business has: names and contact information for customers, information on what the customers buy, prices charged to the customers, names and contact information for vendors, prices charged by vendors, etc. The king of the soft trade secrets is the customer list, which may or may not be a trade secret, depending on the facts (see Customer List Confusion).

In the typical soft trade secrets case involving a departing employee, there are usually four key issues:

1. Did the employee take information from the former employer?

2. Was the information actually “trade secrets”?

3. Did the employee actually use the information to compete with the former employer?

4. What amount of damages did the employee cause the former employer by using the information to compete?

Experts on good writing may cringe at my repeated use of the intensifier “actually,” but it’s appropriate here. It’s a reminder to approach trade secrets claims with a healthy skepticism. As one federal judge said in a recent opinion, “Many plaintiffs allege trade secret misappropriation, but few prove it.”[1]

So how do the new Pattern Jury Charge (PJC) questions compare to these key issues in a typical soft trade secrets case?

“It took me years to write, would you take a look?”

Like other PJC sections, most of the new section on trade secrets consists of commentary on the applicable statute and case law. The questions themselves are quite short. They boil down to this:

1. Did Paul Payne own a trade secret in the ___ listed below? [the jury answers separately for each thing alleged to be a trade secret]

2. Did Don Davis misappropriate Paul Payne’s trade secret?

3. What amount of damages . . . etc. [the standard damages question that applies to all kinds of claims]

This would be simple for a jury to understand but for one problem: How does the jury know what “trade secret” and “misappropriate” mean?

The PJC solves this problem with instructions. The question on ownership of a trade secret is followed by the statutory definition of a trade secret from the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (affectionately known as “TUTSA”). The question on misappropriation is followed by the statutory definition of misappropriation.[2]

This sticks to the basic template for most PJC questions: ask a really simple question, then give detailed instructions that define the terms used in the question. The detailed instructions are, in effect, a mini-tutorial on the area of law at issue.

The questions tend to be broad, rather than focusing on specific facts. For example, in a breach of contract case, the PJC is going to ask “did Don Davis fail to perform the contract?” rather than “did Don Davis fail to deliver the truckload of bricks to the green house on Pecan Street on the date stated in the contract?”

Similarly, the PJC question on trade secret misappropriation asks “did Don Davis misappropriate Paul Payne’s trade secret?” rather than “did Don Davis email himself Paul Payne’s confidential customer list and use it to sell bricks to Paul Payne’s customers?”

For my non-lawyer readers, this is part of what we call “broad-form” submission. Historically, the main reason for broad-form submission was to reduce the likelihood that the jury’s verdict would be reversed on appeal. There is a mountain of case law and articles on what broad-form submission means. It will suffice to say that the rule in Texas is this: broad-form submission is required, except when it isn’t.

“It could make a million for you overnight”

So what’s the alternative to the broadly stated trade secrets questions in the PJC? In the jury trial I mentioned above, we handled it differently. We submitted these questions (I’ve changed the names and the product):

1. Was any of the information Dawn Davis obtained from Paula Payne trade secrets?

2. Did Dawn Davis use Paula Payne’s trade secrets to make window sales at Real Cheap Windows?

3. What sum of money . . . would fairly and reasonably compensate Paula Payne for her damages, if any, proximately caused by Dawn Davis’s use of Paula Payne’s trade secrets at Real Cheap Windows?

Like the PJC, the instructions included the statutory definition of “trade secret” taken straight from TUTSA.

Unlike the PJC, there was no question about “misappropriation,” because it was undisputed my clients had taken the information at issue. My argument was (1) the information wasn’t trade secrets, and (2) my clients didn’t use the information to make the sales. Those were the real issues in dispute, so I argued for submitting those specific questions, and the judge agreed.

I like my questions better than the PJC questions. They get right to the point and are easier for the jury to understand. They don’t require a jury to puzzle over a definition of “misappropriation.” But I admit the form of my questions won’t work in every case.

Why?

First, in my case there was no real dispute about what information was taken. I had asked the plaintiff in discovery to identify the alleged trade secrets, and it identified a specific stack of documents my clients admitted taking. The question was whether the information in those documents was trade secrets.

Second, there was no dispute that my clients had sold products to customers of the first employer after leaving. The dispute was whether they made those sales by using the alleged trade secrets.

So the format we used for the trade secrets questions in that case may not work in your case. But that only proves my point. The PJC should only be a starting point. Judges and lawyers should not be afraid to adapt it to the specific facts of their case.

“It’s a thousand pages, give or take a few”

The new questions and instructions on trade secret misappropriation do what the Pattern Jury Charge is supposed to do. They provide a template for submitting trade secrets misappropriation questions that is consistent with Texas law and broad enough to apply to different kinds of cases.

But that’s all they do. There is a danger of rote use of the PJC questions when more specific questions tied to the facts of the case would be more appropriate and more understandable to the jury.

If the real issue is whether a customer list was a trade secret or not, then why not just ask the jury that? Or if the dispute is about whether the former employee used the employer’s customer list, why not just ask “did Don Davis use Paul Payne’s customer list?”

Of course, the problem is that there is usually a fight between the lawyers over the wording of the jury questions. When the parties don’t agree, the safer thing for the judge to do is to follow the PJC and submit a broad question, rather than a question tied to the specific facts in dispute. This is “safe” in the sense that it reduces the judge’s chance of getting reversed on appeal.

But the safe thing is not always the best thing. Actually.

Don’t forget to like our Facebook page. 

________________________________________________

Zach Wolfe is a Texas trial lawyer who handles non-compete and trade secret litigation. His firm Fleckman & McGlynn, PLLC has offices in Austin, Houston, and The Woodlands. It’s a steady job, but he wants to be a paperback writer.

These are his opinions, not the opinions of his firm or clients, so don’t cite part of this post against him in an actual case. Every case is different, so don’t rely on this post as legal advice for your case.

[1] Kuryakyn Holdings, LLC v. Ciro, LLC, No. 15-cv-703-jdp, 2017 WL 1026025, at *7 (W.D. Wis. Mar. 15, 2017).

[2] The definitions are in Section 134A.002 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.