Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. v. Sycamore

United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division

October 4, 2017

BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
LELAND SYCAMORE and UNITED STATES BAKERY, INC., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RULING ON COMMENTS AND OBJECTIONS TO COURT'S PROPOSED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS AND SPECIAL VERDICT FORM

          DAVID NUFFER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         INTRODUCTION

         The Court's Proposed Jury Instructions and Special Verdict Form filed before trial invited comments and objections from the parties.[1] Responses to the Preliminary Instructions were addressed in a prior order.[2] Comments and objections to the Final Jury Instructions and Special Verdict Form have been submitted by plaintiff, Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. (“Bimbo Bakeries”), [3] and defendant United States Bakery, Inc. (“US Bakery”).[4] Brief argument regarding the viability of false advertising claim based on literal falsity was heard on the morning of October 3, 2017, and the parties submitted case authorities[5]. The parties' comments and objections are OVERRULED IN PART and SUSTAINED IN PART as set forth in this Memorandum Decision and Order. They jury will receive the Final Jury Instructions and Special Verdict Form as set forth in the forms attached hereto.

         DISCUSSION

         Global Changes

         Bimbo Bakeries has requested certain global changes to the Final Jury Instructions and Special Verdict Form.[6] Each of these global changes is granted.

         First, references to the phrase “Freshly Baked in Utah” have been removed from the Final Jury Instructions and Special Verdict Form because Bimbo Bakeries has withdrawn the portion of its false advertising claim based on that phrase.[7]

         Second, references to Tyler Sycamore and Wild Grains as defendants in this action have been removed because Tyler Sycamore and Wild Grains were dismissed.[8]

         Third, the jury instructions regarding false advertising will be presented before the instructions on trade secret misappropriation. The instructions are reordered to follow the order of the claims in the special verdict form and to reflect Bimbo Bakeries' presentation of evidence.[9] The change necessitates moving former Instruction No. 36 forward to Instruction No. 29 to instruct the jury on calculating profits in conjunction with the first jury instruction raising the issue of profits.

         Final Jury Instructions

         Instruction on Stipulated Facts Replaced with Instruction on Demonstrative Exhibits: No. 17

         The parties have not stipulated to facts. An instruction on stipulated facts is not necessary and has been removed. The instruction has been replaced with an instruction explaining demonstrative exhibits and their use.

         False Advertising-Essential Elements: No. 25

         The jury instruction explaining the elements of a false advertising claim refer to “material false or misleading representations of fact in connection with the advertising or promotion of [US Bakery's] products.” Following the testimony of U.S. Bakery's witnesses, including Todd Cornwell, the jury would benefit from an instruction on what constitutes “advertising or promotion” for purposes of a false advertising claim. Instruction No. 25 has been revised to include the test for “advertising or promotion” developed by the federal courts under the Lanham Act and adopted in the Tenth Circuit.[10]

         Definition of Trade Secret: Former No. 26 (Now No. 34)

         A pretrial order rejects the defendants' proposed jury instruction that “[c]ertain information loses protection as a trade secret if it has been merged into a person's own faculties, skill, and experience.”[11] U.S. Bakery has objected to the exclusion of this statement from the jury instructions.[12] U.S. Bakery argues that the proposed instruction is consistent with the Utah Supreme Court's ruling in Microbiological Research Corp. v. Muna, [13] As explained in the prior order on this instruction, the Microbiological case quotes directly from a statement in a treatise that has been withdrawn in the subsequent edition of the treatise.[14] The proposed instruction is not a reliable statement of Utah law. U.S. Bakery's objection is overruled.

         Bimbo Bakeries objects to the Definition of Trade Secret instruction because it instructs the jury that “[i]f a defendant could reverse-engineer the components of a formula or process by performing basic research, or if the information is available from public sources, the information cannot constitute a trade secret.” This is an accurate statement of the law.[15] Bimbo Bakeries' objection is overruled.

         Definition of Misappropriation: Former No. 28 (Now No. 36)

         Bimbo Bakeries favors the word “used” over “utilized” in the Definition of Misappropriation instruction. The term “use” appears elsewhere in the instructions as a simpler synonym of “utilize.” For consistency, the instruction has been revised as requested to read: “derived from or through a person who had used improper means to acquire it.”

         An Employee's General Knowledge, Skill, or Experience: Former No. 30 (Now No. 38)

         References to former defendants Tyler Sycamore and Wild Grains have been removed from this instruction.

         Innocently Acquired Trade Secrets: Former No. 33 (Now No. 41)

         US Bakery objects to including a jury instruction on innocently acquired trade secrets.[16] US Bakery has not shown that the instruction is an inaccurate statement of the law. The objection is overruled. However, the decision to present the instruction to the jury is reserved and will be included only if evidence is presented that the alleged trade secret was innocently acquired.

         References to former defendants Tyler Sycamore and Wild Grains have been removed from this instruction.

         Trade Secret Misappropriation-Willfulness: Former No. 40 (Now No. 47)

         Consistent with the prior order ruling on the standard of evidence, the jury will be instructed on the “clear and convincing” standard in addition to the “preponderance of the evidence” standard.[17] U.S. Bakery's objection in favor of the “clear and convincing” standard[18] is moot because instruction on the “clear and convincing” standard has been accepted. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.