Western Blue Print Co. v. Roberts
367 S.W.3d 7
| Mo. | 2012Background
- Western Blue sued Appellants for damages after Myrna left Western Blue to form DocuCopy with Mel; Myrna held division VP at Western Blue and had access to proprietary information; DocuCopy obtained WBE certification and competed for Western Blue’s university contract; Myrna’s departure coincided with DocuCopy securing the university and State contracts, leading to Western Blue’s Columbia branch closure; Western Blue asserted fiduciary duty, tortious interference, computer tampering, civil conspiracy, and attorney’s fees; the circuit court denied directed verdict/JNOV in most respects, jurors awarded Western Blue $600,000 and fees totaling $224,489.18
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fiduciary duty existence | Myrna was an at-will employee with de facto control | No top-echelon officer; no confidential relationship | Myrna owed no fiduciary duty; directed verdict granted in favor of Appellants on fiduciary claim. |
| Tortious interference validity | Western Blue had a valid expectancy and Myrna interfered improperly | Interference justified by Myrna’s legitimate interests and competition | Sustained; Western Blue had a valid business expectancy and Myrna interfered without justification. |
| Computer tampering proof | Deletion/copying of data evidenced unauthorized tampering | Evidence insufficient to prove Myrna deleted or authorized actions | Sustained; sufficient evidence supported computer tampering verdict. |
| Civil conspiracy | Mel aided Myrna to achieve interference with Western Blue’s contracts | No unlawful objective or meeting of minds | Sustained; conspiracy claim supported by tortious interference evidence. |
| Attorney’s fees segregation | Fees should reflect only computer tampering work | Intertwined issues justify broader fee allocation | Affirmed; circuit court properly segregated fees and did not abuse discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zakibe v. Ahrens & McCarron, Inc., 28 S.W.3d 373 (Mo. App. E.D.2000) (fiduciary duty via general duties; scope limited by position)
- Zemitzsch v. Harrison, 712 S.W.2d 418 (Mo. App. E.D.1986) (confidential relationship requires more than ordinary employment info)
- Trieman v. National Rejectors, Inc., 409 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. App. 1966) (High-level employee duty; no duty to notify upon termination absent restrictive covenant)
- Scanwell Freight Express STL, Inc. v. Chan, 162 S.W.3d 477 (Mo. Banc 2005) (employee’s duty; competition after employment; confidential information limits)
- Envirotech, Inc. v. Thomas, 259 S.W.3d 577 (Mo. App. E.D.2008) (absence of justification; improper means rule)
- Sloan v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 1 S.W.3d 555 (Mo. App. W.D.1999) (probable future business relationship suffices for expectancy)