United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville
BABCOCK POWER, INC. and VOGT POWER INTERNATIONAL, INC. PLAINTIFFS
STEPHEN T. KAPSALIS DEFENDANT
COURT'S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY
that you have heard all of the evidence, and the argument of
the attorneys, it is my duty to give you instructions as to
the law applicable in this case.
your duty as jurors to follow the law as stated in the
instructions, and to apply that law to the facts you find
from the evidence.
not to single out one instruction alone as stating the law.
You must consider the instructions as a whole.
not to be concerned with the wisdom of any rule of law stated
by the court. You must apply the law given in these
instructions whether you agree with it or not.
your duty to determine the facts, and in so doing you must
consider only the evidence I have admitted in the case. The
term "evidence" includes the sworn testimony of the
witnesses, live and by deposition, and the exhibits admitted
in the record. It is your own interpretation and recollection
of the evidence that controls.
permitted to draw reasonable inferences, deductions, and
conclusions from the testimony and exhibits which you feel
are justified in light of your own common sense.
saying that you must consider all the evidence, I do not mean
to suggest that you must necessarily accept all of the
evidence as true or accurate. You are the sole judges of the
credibility or believability of each witness, and the weight
to be given to the testimony of each witness.
determining the credibility of any witness, you may properly
consider the demeanor of the witness while testifying,
frankness or lack of it, and his or her interest in the
outcome of the case, if any.
knowledge of a specialized subject matter may be helpful to
the jury, a person ■ having training or experience in
the field is permitted to state an opinion. Merely because
such a witness has expressed an opinion, however, does not
mean that you must accept that opinion. The same as with any
other witness, it is up to you to decide whether to rely upon
may be direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is direct
proof of a fact, such as testimony by a witness about what
that witness saw or heard or did. Circumstantial evidence is
proof of one or more facts from which you could find another
fact. You should consider both kinds of evidence. The law
makes no distinction between the weight to be given to either
direct or circumstantial evidence. It is for you to decide
how much weight to give to any evidence.
statements, objections, and arguments made by the lawyers are
not evidence. What the lawyers have said to you is not
binding upon you.
weight of the evidence is not necessarily determined by the
number of witnesses testifying as to the existence or
nonexistence of any fact. You should be guided in your
deliberations by the quality and credibility of the evidence
you have heard.
does not require any party to call as witnesses all persons
who may have been present at any time or place involved in
the case, or who may appear to have some knowledge of the
matters in issue at this trial. Nor does the law require any
party to produce as exhibits all papers and things mentioned
in the evidence in the case.
have heard in this case, Babcock Power, Inc. and Vogt Power
International, Inc. assert that their former employee,
Stephen T. Kapsalis, (1) misappropriated their trade secrets,
and (2) breached the confidentiality provision of the
Employee Non-Disclosure, Non-Solicitation, Non-Competition
and Assignment Agreement ("the Agreement") signed
by Kapsalis. In these instructions, I will refer to the
parties as "Babcock," collectively, and
"Kapsalis," rather than continually repeating their
names in full.
case should be considered and decided by you as an action
between persons of equal standing in the community, holding
the same or similar stations in life. A corporation is
entitled to the same fair trial at your hands as an
corporation acts through its employees.
should not consider the financial resources of either party
in making your decision.
claims that Kapsalis misappropriated its trade secrets in
violation of the Kentucky Uniform Trade Secrets Act
("KUTSA"). In order for Babcock to succeed on this
claim, Babcock must prove that each of the following elements
is more likely true than not true:
That Babcock possessed one or more trade secrets as defined
by KUTSA; and
That Kapsalis misappropriated one or more of Babcock's
considering whether Babcock possessed one or more trade
secrets as defined by KUTSA, you will consider the following:
defines a trade secret as information, including a formula,
pattern, compilation, program, data, device, method,
technique, or process, that:
(a) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential,
from not being generally known to, and not being readily
ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can
obtain economic value from its disclosure or use;
(b) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the
circumstances to ...