InfoCision Mgt. Corp. v. Donor Car Center, Inc.
2016 Ohio 789
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- InfoCision, a telemarketing firm, sued former employee Kevin Johnson and competitors Donor Care and Synergy for misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of a nondisclosure agreement after an InfoCision employee (Cooper) admitted providing campaign materials to Johnson after he left for Synergy/Donor Care.
- Donor Care and Synergy counterclaimed for unfair competition, misappropriation of trade secrets, and related torts; some defendants sought attorney fees and sanctions under Ohio statutes following jury verdicts.
- Jury found for Donor Care and Synergy on their counterclaims (concluding InfoCision acted maliciously and without probable cause) and found InfoCision liable on breach of nondisclosure and tortious interference against Johnson.
- Trial court awarded attorney fees to Synergy and Donor Care under R.C. 1333.64 and R.C. 2323.51, and doubled those fees as punitive damages; InfoCision moved for JNOV/new trial twice, the second motion being untimely.
- On appeal InfoCision challenged (1) denial of JNOV, (2) punitive damages (and due process), (3) attorney-fee awards under R.C. 1333.64, (4) sanctions/fees under R.C. 2323.51, and (5) exclusion of a jury instruction on ratification.
- The Ninth District affirmed: JNOV second motion barred as untimely/duplicative; trial court did not abuse discretion in awarding statutory attorney fees or punitive damages; no abuse in refusing the late ratification instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether JNOV/new-trial should be granted on appellees’ counterclaims | InfoCision: JNOV required because its suit was objectively reasonable and appellees showed no compensatory damages | Donor Care/Synergy: JNOV-2 was untimely and duplicative of earlier post-trial motions; jury and record supported verdicts | Denied — second JNOV/new-trial motion untimely and duplicative; trial court had substantial competent evidence to support verdicts |
| Whether attorney fees under R.C. 1333.64 were improper | InfoCision: fee award unwarranted because no willful/malicious misappropriation or damages | Appellees: jury found InfoCision acted maliciously and without good faith; trial court discretion to award fees | Affirmed — trial court reasonably exercised discretion; jury findings supported statutory fee awards |
| Whether sanctions/fees under R.C. 2323.51 were improper | InfoCision: prosecution of claims against some defendants was not frivolous | Appellees: InfoCision lacked credible evidence against certain parties; conduct was sanctionable | Affirmed — record supported award and, in any event, fees already properly awarded under R.C. 1333.64 |
| Whether failure to give ratification instruction required new trial | InfoCision: trial court should have instructed jury on ratification of employee’s conduct | Donor Care/Synergy: instruction was not timely requested and was not an issue properly preserved | Denied — instruction untimely, not properly submitted per Civ.R. 51, and trial court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Freeman v. Wilkinson, 65 Ohio St.3d 307 (1992) (Civ.R. 50(B) JNOV applies only to jury verdicts)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse of discretion standard defined)
- Murphy v. Carrollton Mfg. Co., 61 Ohio St.3d 585 (1991) (when to give requested jury instructions)
- Berge v. Columbus Comm. Cable Access, 136 Ohio App.3d 281 (1999) (standards and guideposts for awarding punitive damages)
- Kemp v. Kemp, 161 Ohio App.3d 671 (2005) (punitive-damages review is abuse of discretion)
- State v. Guster, 66 Ohio St.2d 266 (1981) (jury instructions must address actual issues raised by evidence)