LYMAN Et Al. v. CELLCHEM INTERNATIONAL, LLC
335 Ga. App. 266
Ga. Ct. App.2015Background
- Cellchem International, LLC sued Dale and Helen Lyman, Tritec International, Inc., and Shekoy Chemicals US, Inc. for torts including computer trespass/theft and breach of fiduciary duty, with a 2014 jury verdict totaling about $7.4 million.
- The jury allocated damages across claims, including punitive damages of $5.1 million and a separate breach of fiduciary duty verdict.
- Lymans’ involvement included Lyman’s role with Shekoy and Tritec, Yoke Technology’s ownership structure, and Lyman’s orders and communications affecting Cellchem’s supplier relationships.
- Cellchem alleged the Lymans and related entities interfered with Cellchem’s business relations to undermine its suppliers and customers, aided by Yoke/Shekoy connections.
- Key contested issues at trial included tortious interference, computer theft/trespass, punitive damages, admissibility of certain exhibits, and access to Cellchem’s federal tax returns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tortious interference vs. business relations | Cellchem contends Lyman/Tritec/Shekoy interfered with suppliers/customers. | Appellants argue no improper conduct or strangers to relations; Cellchem failed to prove inducement. | Reverse; trial court erred on directed verdict/new trial. |
| Interference by Lyman and Shekoy with Yoke relationship | Yoke/Cellchem relationship was disrupted by Lyman/Shekoy actions. | No evidence Lyman/Shekoy induced third-party termination. | Reverse; insufficient evidence of inducement by Lyman/Shekoy. |
| Interference by Mrs. Lyman with customers/suppliers | Mrs. Lyman’s duties created a stranger-to-relationship issue. | Mrs. Lyman not a stranger; interwoven duties preclude liability. | Reverse; Mrs. Lyman not a stranger; tortious interference not proven. |
| Admission of Exhibits 72–77 (damages evidence) | Exhibits were proper business records; admissible for damages. | Some exhibits were litigation-created summaries not regularly kept. | Exhibits 72, 73 reversed; Exhibits 76, 77 affirmed. |
| Punitive damages against multiple Appellants | Punitive damages supported by breach of fiduciary duty and other proven conduct. | Cannot determine basis for punitive award from general verdict form. | Reverse; remand for new punitive-damages trial. |
| Production of Cellchem's federal tax returns at trial | Tax records are relevant and discoverable; production proper under OCGA. | Disclosure outside discovery period; not timely. | Reverse; trial court erred in preventing production. |
Key Cases Cited
- Onbrand Media v. Codex Consulting, Inc., 301 Ga. App. 141 (2009) (not a stranger to relationship requirement; beneficiary not a stranger)
- Tom’s Amusement Co., Inc. v. Total Vending Svcs., 243 Ga. App. 294 (2000) (employee not a stranger to employer’s customers; cannot be liable)
- Atlanta Market Ctr. Mgt. Co. v. McLane, 269 Ga. 604 (1998) (not a stranger where interwoven contract relationships exist)
- Perry Golf Course Dev., LLC v. Housing Auth. of the City of Atlanta, 294 Ga. App. 387 (2008) (interwoven contractual relationships govern interference liability)
- Jefferson-Pilot Communications Co. v. Phoenix City Broadcasting, Ltd. of Atlanta, 205 Ga. App. 57 (1992) (purchaser not a stranger to contract relations)
- Ferman v. Bailey, 292 Ga. App. 288 (2008) (standards for reviewing directed verdicts and sufficiency)
- Archer Motor Co., Inc. v. Intl. Business Investments, Inc., 193 Ga. App. 86 (1989) (judgment review standards in Georgia appellate practice)