Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Gresh, 311 Fed.Appx. at 771 (noting that “ordinary business relationships” conducted at arm’s length do not rise to the level of a fiduciary relationship); Quadrille Bus. Sys. v. Ky. Cattlemen’s Ass’n, 242 S.W.3d 359, 365 (Ky.Ct.App.2007) (“An ordinary business relationship or an agreement reached through arm’s length transactions cannot be turned into a fiduciary one absent factors of mutual knowledge of confidentiality or the undue exercise of power or influence.” (quotation marks and citation omitted)). Additionally, while “fiduciary relationships can be informal, [] they must evidence circumstances showing both parties agreed that one party would be acting in the interest of the other.” In re Sallee, 286 F.3d at 893; see also Abney v. Amgen, Inc., 443 F.3d 540, 550 (6th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). Kentucky courts have found 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the defendant lacked sufficient contacts with the forum state because there was no evidence the defendant knew where the product would be sold (B) holding that because there was no factual dispute between the parties the presumption of correctness is not relevant (C) holding that no fiduciary duty existed between the plaintiff and defendant because there was no evidence that the parties agreed that defendant would be acting primarily for the benefit of the plaintiffs (D) holding there was no evidence to support the existence of any alleged fiduciary duty (E) holding that a defendant owed no duty to a plaintiff with regard to the safekeeping of evidence because there was no promise by the defendant or its employees to inspect or safeguard the evidence for the plaintiffs benefit and destruction of physical evidence was not criminal because destruction was innocent and designed to ensure the safety of the defendants employees
Output (English): holding that a defendant owed no duty to a plaintiff with regard to the safekeeping of evidence because there was no promise by the defendant or its employees to inspect or safeguard the evidence for the plaintiffs benefit and destruction of physical evidence was not criminal because destruction was innocent and designed to ensure the safety of the defendants employees