Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00653/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00653-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 23:1441 Contract Real Estate

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES M. OLVEY, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

ERROTABERE RANCHES, et al., )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-06-653 OWW/SMS

MEMORANDUM DECISION GRANTING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF

THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’

REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS (Doc.

21)

On May 26, 2006, Plaintiff James M. Olvey filed a Complaint

for Damages. Defendants are Errotabere Ranches and Daniel D.

Errotabere and Jean Errotabere. 

Defendants move for summary adjudication of the Thirteenth

Claim for Relief. The Thirteenth Claim for Relief alleges:

77. On or about October 1, 1998, OLVEY,

acting on behalf of O & A Enterprises, and

JEAN entered into a contract for professional

consultation services, wherein JEAN would

provide consulting services for O & A

Enterprises. Pursuant to the contract, JEAN

signed a confidentiality agreement, wherein

JEAN agreed not to disclose any private,

proprietary or confidential information

Case 1:06-cv-00653-OWW -SMS Document 39 Filed 02/15/08 Page 1 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

related to her [sic] services to any third

parties even after the contract was

terminated. In exchange for his [sic]

services, JEAN was paid $20,000 per year,

plus travel expenses. JEAN provided such

consulting services from 1998 through 2004. 

O & A Enterprises has assigned its rights

under the Confidentiality Agreement to OLVEY.

78. OLVEY is informed and believes, and

thereon alleges, that JEAN has breached the

confidentiality agreement by disclosing

private, proprietary and/or confidential

information protected thereunder and by

refusing to return to OLVEY, on demand from O

& A Enterprises prior to the assignment

alleged above, all of the confidential

documents in JEAN’s possession to which OLVEY

is entitled.

A. MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION.

1. GOVERNING STANDARDS.

Summary judgment is proper when it is shown that there

exists “no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the

moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. A fact is “material” if it is relevant to an

element of a claim or a defense, the existence of which may

affect the outcome of the suit. T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v.

Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th

Cir.1987). Materiality is determined by the substantive law

governing a claim or a defense. Id. The evidence and all

inferences drawn from it must be construed in the light most

favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. 

The initial burden in a motion for summary judgment is on

the moving party. The moving party satisfies this initial burden

by identifying the parts of the materials on file it believes

Case 1:06-cv-00653-OWW -SMS Document 39 Filed 02/15/08 Page 2 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

demonstrate an “absence of evidence to support the non-moving

party’s case.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325

(1986). The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to defeat

summary judgment. T.W. Elec., 809 F.2d at 630. The nonmoving

party “may not rely on the mere allegations in the pleadings in

order to preclude summary judgment,” but must set forth by

affidavit or other appropriate evidence “specific facts showing

there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id. The nonmoving party

may not simply state that it will discredit the moving party’s

evidence at trial; it must produce at least some “significant

probative evidence tending to support the complaint.” Id. The

question to be resolved is not whether the “evidence unmistakably

favors one side or the other, but whether a fair-minded jury

could return a verdict for the plaintiff on the evidence

presented.” United States ex rel. Anderson v. N. Telecom, Inc.,

52 F.3d 810, 815 (9 Cir.1995). This requires more than the th

“mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the

plaintiff’s position”; there must be “evidence on which the jury

could reasonably find for the plaintiff.” Id. The more

implausible the claim or defense asserted by the nonmoving party,

the more persuasive its evidence must be to avoid summary

judgment.” Id.

2. FACTUAL BACKGROUND.

a. Defendant’s Factual Position.

There is no dispute that Jean entered into a one-year 

Consultant Agreement with O & A Enterprises on October 1, 1998. 

Case 1:06-cv-00653-OWW -SMS Document 39 Filed 02/15/08 Page 3 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

Section 4 of the Consultant Agreement provided:

Consultant understands that in the

performance of service hereunder Consultant

may originate or obtain knowledge of

‘confidential information,’ as hereinafter

defined, relating to the business of O & A. 

As used herein, ‘confidential information’

(including, without limitation, any plant

material, formula, pattern device, plan,

process or compilation of information) which

(1) [sic] is, or is designed to be, used in

the business of O & A or results from its

research and/or development activities, (ii)

is private or confidential in that it is not

generally known or available to the public

and, (iii) gives O & A an opportunity to

obtain an advantage over competitors who do

not know or use it. Consultant shall not,

without the written consent of the President

of O & A, (a) use or disclose any such

confidential information outside of O & A,

(b) publish any article with respect thereto,

or (c) except in the performance of his

services hereunder, remove or aid in the

removal from the premises of O & A, or any

other locations being utilized by O & A, any

such confidential information or any property

or material which relates thereof. The

provisions of this paragraph shall survive

the completion or termination of this

agreement. 

By letter dated December 22, 2005, Olvey wrote to Jean as

follows:

When you were a Consultant with O & A

Enterprises, you signed a Confidentiality

Agreement on or about October 1, 1998. I

have some concern that agreement may have

been violated.

Nonetheless, since you are no longer serving

as a consultant with O & A, and since the

materials in your possession are proprietary

in nature, I am writing to ask that you

immediately return all O & A related

materials (e.g., documentation, materials,

equipment) ....

Case 1:06-cv-00653-OWW -SMS Document 39 Filed 02/15/08 Page 4 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

5

Please send the requested materials no later

than the close of business on December 29,

2005 and confirm for me in writing that the

materials you are sending represent all of

the O & A related materials in your

possession, custody, or control.

On December 23, 2005, Gary Sawyers, counsel for Defendants,

emailed Kurt Vote, counsel for Plaintiff, and stated in pertinent

part: 

Jean Errotabere has not violated any

obligations he had to Mr. Olvey, and does not

believe that he has any materials belonging

to Mr. Olvey in his possession. However, I

have asked him to again check his files to

confirm that fact. If he discovers any O&A

materials, they will be promptly returned.

By Declaration in support of this motion, Defendant Jean

Errotabere avers in pertinent part:

2. I have performed a diligent search for

any confidential materials relating to O&A or

Mr. Olvey and have not located any such

documents in my possession, custody, or

control.

During his deposition taken on May 16, 2007, Plaintiff

testified in pertinent part:

Q. Why did you make this request [in the

December 22, 2005 letter to Jean]?

A. We had - we were obviously aware that

Jean had seven or eight years of

documentation on the activities that he

conducted for O&A. And we requested that he

return it.

Q. What documents are you referring to?

A. All the permit requests, the crop

improvement certification requests, any

communication. There’s a lot of paperwork in

California, so we figured he had an entire

file filled with it or should have.

Case 1:06-cv-00653-OWW -SMS Document 39 Filed 02/15/08 Page 5 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

6

Q. Do you know if he had any of those

documents?

A. He certainly was in possession of those

as we went through each activity.

Q. Do you have any knowledge or evidence

that he still had any of those documents as

of December 22 , 2005? nd

A. We’re not aware of that.

Q. So you have no evidence that he still had

those documents as of December 22 , 2005? nd

A. We have no way of knowing whether he does

or does not.

...

Q. As you sit here today, do you have any

evidence that Jean still had any of those

documents as of December 22 , 2005? nd

...

THE WITNESS: I have no idea.

BY MR. IVY: Q. Actually, it’s a ‘yes’ or

‘no,’ you have or you don’t. I know you

think certain things, or you have no idea. 

You either have evidence or you don’t. 

That’s not going to forever bar you, but you

either have evidence that he had the

documents as of then or you don’t. I’m

asking you which is it?

A. He had the documents at one time. We’re

not certain as to whether he has them now.

Q. Do you have any evidence that he had them

as of December 22 , 2005? nd

A. No. 

Q. Do you believe Jean breached the

agreement?

A. As we said in this letter, we had some

concerns that the agreement may have been

violated.

Case 1:06-cv-00653-OWW -SMS Document 39 Filed 02/15/08 Page 6 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

7

Q. What were your concerns?

A. We were working on proprietary material,

and he was privy to that information.

Q. Which proprietary material are you

referring to?

...

THE WITNESS: We are getting utilities patents 

right now, so I can give you the preliminary

utility patent requests once they’re out.

...

Q. I’m actually referring to what

proprietary material do you think Jean had or

disclosed as the basis for your claim?

A. That’s what we’re referring to, two

patent requests that we are in the process of

making.

Q. What did the patent request [sic]

generally cover?

A. Some of the material in the nursery.

Q. Do you have any evidence that Jean has

disclosed any of your proprietary material?

A. Not to my knowledge.

[Olvey Dep. 59:23-62:13]

Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ Interrogatory No. 18,

which requested that Plaintiff state all facts upon which his

claim that Jean breached the Confidentiality Agreement, states:

Prior to the institution of this litigation,

Plaintiff requested that Mr. Errotabere

verify in writing that he had not violated

the Confidentiality Agreement, that he did

not possess any confidential information, and

asking that Mr. Errotabere return all

confidential documents to Plaintiff. Mr.

Errotabere refused to do so. Therefore, in

light of the parties six year relationship,

Case 1:06-cv-00653-OWW -SMS Document 39 Filed 02/15/08 Page 7 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

8

the fact that Mr. Errotabere was privy to

confidential information and documents, and

that he has refused to confirm that he does

not possess confidential information,

Plaintiff can only conclude that he is in

possession of such material and refuses to

return it as requested.

b. Plaintiff’s Factual Position.

In opposing summary judgment, Plaintiff refers to the

deposition testimony of Jean Errotabere:

BY MR. LITTLEWOOD: Q. And during the time in

which you acted as a consultant for O&A

Enterprises, did you receive any information

that was confidential?

...

THE WITNESS: I don’t know what that would be. 

Everything he discussed with me, he discussed

pretty much in front of my brother, too, so

...

BY MR. LITTLEWOOD: Q. Well, I’m thinking of,

did you receive any documents from O&A

Enterprises discussing its seeds or any of

the experimentation they were doing?

A. I have nothing like that.

Q. Did you at any time receive any

documentation from O&A Enterprises in your

capacity as a consultant?

A. Other than this [the Consultant

Agreement], no.

Q. Did you ever communicate with Mr. Olvey

via E-mail?

A. No.

Q. Did you record those conversations?

A. No.

Q. Mr. Olvey ever provide you with

literature regarding any of the seeds he was

Case 1:06-cv-00653-OWW -SMS Document 39 Filed 02/15/08 Page 8 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

9

experimenting on?

A. No, other than what he faxed us that he

was going to be planting. And a lot of stuff

that was earlier just had numbers on there, I

didn’t know what they were, what varieties

they were, or even what type of cotton it

was, until he planted it.

Q. Did you keep that documentation that he

had faxed you?

A. Some. Some I threw out because once we

got done with the planting, they were

meaningless to me, or for anybody else.

Q. And you indicate that some of it was

thrown out. Was any of it kept?

A. I can’t find anything.

Q. Where did you look?

A. In my office. I didn’t have a specific

O&A file that I kept, or anything. Most of

it I threw out when I cleared my desk,

because it was old information.

Q. Were you ever provided any information on

results from testing that was done by O&A on

any of its seeds?

A. No, he never gave me that information.

...

Q. Now, in terms of confidentiality

provisions under this agreement, did you

understand that any information that you were

receiving in your capacity as a consultant

was to remain confidential?

...

THE WITNESS: I never discussed this with

anybody else.

BY MR. LITTLEWOOD: Q. I guess my question

was, was it your understanding when you

entered into this agreement that any

information you obtained as a consultant was

Case 1:06-cv-00653-OWW -SMS Document 39 Filed 02/15/08 Page 9 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

10

to remain confidential?

A. Yes.

...

Q. And did you ever disclose any of the

information that you did obtain in your

capacity as consultant to any third party

without first obtaining Mr. Olvey’s

permission?

A. Not that I’m aware of.

Q. And did you retain any of the materials

that you received in your capacity as a

consultant after this agreement ended?

...

A. No, we don’t have anything of his.

Q. Has Mr. Olvey ever requested you to

return any materials that you may have that

you received pursuant to this agreement?

A. We - we don’t have any. He never did ask

if we had any of his materials. We don’t

have any of his materials.

Q. Okay. My question though is, did he ever

specifically ask you to return any materials

that you may have?

A. I don’t remember.

Q. And as you sit here today, your testimony

is that you don’t have any such materials. 

Do you have any recollection of actually

providing him any materials?

A. If we had, we would have definitely given

it back to him, but he never left any seed at

our place. He always took it.

Q. Other than seed, were there any other

materials that he either asked for or that

you had that you would have returned?

A. He had some old parts for his cotton

picker we returned to him, and that was about

Case 1:06-cv-00653-OWW -SMS Document 39 Filed 02/15/08 Page 10 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

11

it.

[Jean Errotabere Depo., 92:6-98:15].

Plaintiff also submits his Declaration in which he avers in

pertinent part:

9. Throughout this approximate 7 year

consulting relationship, O & A Enterprises

provided Jean Errotabere with confidential

and proprietary information relating to the

experimental seed being planted on Errotabere

Ranches property. The following categories

of information were provided to Jean

Errotabere either by me, or at my direction,

on behalf of O & A Enterprises: (1) field

plans; (2) seed increase contracts; (3)

California crop improvement paperwork and

applications; (4) permits (planting and

transportation); and (5) correspondence

pertaining to planting of experimental seed

and the harvesting of cotton derived from

experimental seed.

10. The above categories of information

provided to Jean Errotabere identify the

materials planted by type, variety and volume

by area. Such information further disclosed

what varieties were grown, where they were

grown and when they were grown. Furthermore,

the correspondence sent to Jean Errotabere

would contain information coordinating the

planting of given varieties, sought to ensure

isolation and in many instances contained

genetic-related information concerning the

specific type or variety of seed that was the

subject of the correspondence.

11. By my estimate, the volume of

confidential information provided to Jean

Errotabere could fill approximately one to

one and a half standard file cabinets.

12. Shortly after Jean Errotabere’s

consulting relationship with O & A

Enterprises ended in approximately 2004, I

requested in writing, on behalf of O & A

Enterprises, that Mr. Errotabere return all

of the confidential information that had been

provided to him pursuant to the Consulting

Case 1:06-cv-00653-OWW -SMS Document 39 Filed 02/15/08 Page 11 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

12

Agreement ....

13. Neither Jean Errotabere, nor anyone on

his behalf, has returned to O & A Enterprises

or me any of the confidential information as

described above that was provided to him. 

Mr. Errotabere has never confirmed that such

information was destroyed. I understand that

he now claims in this action that he has

performed a diligent search and that he does

not have within his possession, custody or

control any confidential materials of either

me or O & A Enterprises.

14. Because of the competitive nature of the

cotton industry, and the fact that I wanted

to protect the time, money and resources I

had invested, both personally and through O &

A Enterprises, in the research and

development of various seed types and

varieties, I wanted assurances from Jean

Errotabere that he would abide by the

confidentiality provisions contained in the

Consulting Agreement. He refused to provide

such assurances, instead opting to state that

he did not have any confidential information

in his possession. This response was evasive

and insufficient to satisfy me that Jean

Errotabere intended to abide by the terms of

the Consultant Agreement.

3. MERITS OF MOTION.

Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary

adjudication of the Thirteenth Cause of Action because they have

presented evidence that Jean did not possess any confidential

information as of December 22, 2005 and that Plaintiff has no

evidence to the contrary. 

Plaintiff responds that there is sufficient evidence to

create issues of material fact from which an inference that Jean

breached the confidentiality provision can be shown:

Such an inference can be drawn because the

evidence demonstrates (1) that a significant

Case 1:06-cv-00653-OWW -SMS Document 39 Filed 02/15/08 Page 12 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

13

quantity of confidential documents were

provided to Defendant by Plaintiff, (2) that

the parties’ Consulting Agreement ...

provided that the materials given to Jean

were to remain confidential, (3) that before

suit was filed, Defendant refused to account

for the whereabouts of the documents in

question, (4) that Defendant has only stated

now that the documents are not in his

possession, custody, or control - but (a) has

been unable to state whether, where, when and

how the documents were destroyed or discarded

and (b) has not yet denied having given or

sold the documents to a third party,

including (but not limited to) a competitor

of Plaintiff’s or Errotabere Ranches.

Plaintiff has not presented material disputed facts to

negate summary adjudication of the Thirteenth Cause of Action. 

Jean’s attorney, acting as his agent, advised Plaintiff’s

attorney in late December 2005 that Jean did not have any

disputed materials but that he would look again. Jean testified

at his deposition and avers in his declaration that he does not

have any such materials. He testified at his deposition that he

did not provide any materials to any third parties. Plaintiff

testified at his deposition that he has no evidence that

Plaintiff disclosed any confidential materials to any third

party. In contradiction to this evidence is Plaintiff’s

speculation that Jean “must have” such information because of its

volume. Plaintiff has no evidence that Jean disclosed

confidential information to third parties and no evidence that

Jean has retained any confidential information. In order to

avoid summary judgment, the opposing party’s evidence must be

more than the “mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in

Case 1:06-cv-00653-OWW -SMS Document 39 Filed 02/15/08 Page 13 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

14

support of the plaintiff’s position”; there must be “evidence on

which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff.” 

Plaintiff has not made the requisite showing.

Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication of the

Thirteenth Cause of Action is GRANTED.

B. REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS.

Defendants move for sanctions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927

and pursuant to the Court’s inherent power.

28 U.S.C. § 1927 provides in pertinent part:

Any attorney or other person admitted to

conduct cases in any court of the United

States ... who so multiplies the proceedings

in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may

be required by the court to satisfy

personally the excess costs, expenses, and

attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred because

of such conduct.

Sanctions pursuant to Section 1927 may be imposed on a pro per

party. Wages v. I.R.S., 915 F.2d 1230, 1235-1236 (9 Cir. th

1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1096 (1991). Section 1927 “is

concerned only with limiting the abuse of court processes.” 

Roadway Express, Inc. v. Rider, 447 U.S. 752,762 (1980). Section

1927 applies only to unnecessary filings and tactics once a

lawsuit has begun. In re Keegan Management Co., Securities

Litigation, 78 F.3d 431, 435 (9 Cir. 1996). The imposition of th

sanctions pursuant to Section 1927 requires a finding that the

party to be sanctioned acted recklessly or in bad faith. United

States v. Blodgett, 709 F.2d 608, 610 (9 Cir. 1983). A filing th

need not be entirely frivolous to warrant sanctions under Section

Case 1:06-cv-00653-OWW -SMS Document 39 Filed 02/15/08 Page 14 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

15

1927. Lone Ranger Television v. Program Radio Corp., 740 F.2d

718, 727 (9 Cir. 1984). As explained in In re Keegan th

Management Co., Securities Litigation, id., 78 F.3d at 436:

[S]ection 1927 sanctions ‘must be supported

by a finding of subjective bad faith.’ ...

Bad faith is present when an attorney

knowingly or recklessly raises a frivolous

argument, or argues a meritorious claim for

the purpose of harassing an opponent.’ ...

For sanctions to apply, if a filing is

submitted recklessly, it must be frivolous,

while if it is not frivolous, it must be

intended to harass. Thus, while it is true

that reckless filings may be sanctioned, and

nonfrivolous filings may also be sanctioned,

reckless nonfrivolous filings without more,

may not be sanctioned.

The inherent powers of federal courts are those that “‘are

necessary to the exercise of all others.’” Roadway Express, Inc.

v. Piper, supra, 447 U.S. at 764. Conduct that is “tantamount to

bad faith” is sanctionable. Id. at 767. “‘For purposes of

imposing sanctions under the inherent power of the court, a

finding of bad faith “does not require that the legal and factual

basis for the action prove totally frivolous; where a litigant is

substantially motivated by vindictiveness, obduracy, or mala

fides, the assertion of a colorable claim will not bar

the assessment of attorneys’ fees.”’” Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d

989, 992 (9 Cir. 2001). “[S]anctions are available if the th

court specifically finds bad faith or conduct tantamount to bad

faith. Sanctions are available for a variety of types of willful

actions, including recklessness when combined with an additional

factor such as frivolousness, harassment, or an improper

Case 1:06-cv-00653-OWW -SMS Document 39 Filed 02/15/08 Page 15 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

16

purpose.” Id. at 994. The court must make an explicit finding

that counsel’s conduct constituted or was tantamount to bad faith

before imposing sanctions pursuant to the court’s inherent power. 

Primus Automotive Financial Services v. Batarse, 115 F.3d 644,

648-649 (9 Cir. 1997). th

Defendants argue that sanctions are appropriate because the

evidence shows that Plaintiff and his counsel knew they had no

evidence to support the Thirteenth Claim for Relief at the time

of Plaintiff’s deposition and interrogatory response, yet refused

to dismiss the claim even after Defendant agreed to provide a

Declaration from Jean that he had no confidential materials in

exchange for dismissal of the claim for relief. Defendants

assert that they had no choice but to bring this motion for

summary adjudication and that Plaintiff’s knowing pursuit of a

frivolous claim constitutes “bad faith” litigation.

In opposing this request, Plaintiff submits the Declaration

of Kurt Vote:

5. The factual basis for the Thirteenth

Claim for Relief in Plaintiff’s Complaint

relates to the mysterious inability of

Defendant ... Jean ... to account for what

has been represented to me to be a

significant quantity of confidential

documents that were provided to him by

Plaintiff over the course of Jean’s multiyear tenure as a paid consultant for

Plaintiff. Even before this lawsuit was

filed, I attempted to secure from Jean’s

former counsel, Gary Sawyers, a sworn

statement from Jean regarding the disposition

of the confidential documents - which would

(if provided) have resolved the issue;

however, Jean steadfastly refused to provide

any information, let alone information under

Case 1:06-cv-00653-OWW -SMS Document 39 Filed 02/15/08 Page 16 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

17

oath, about the whereabouts of the documents

discussed below. As a result, had [sic] at

the time suit was filed, and still have, what

I consider a reasonable, good faith belief

that Jean violated the terms of his

consulting agreement with Plaintiff. 

6. Plaintiff’s business involves the

development of new types of cotton seed. As

it has been explained to me, the highlycompetitive cotton industry is on a constant

lookout for new varieties of cotton seeds

which will improve the quality and quantity

of material produced, as well as provide

collateral benefits (including disease

resistance, drought tolerance, etc.). 

Plaintiff is one of the members of a select

fraternity of individuals who are involved in

the creation, development, and testing of new

varieties of cotton seed. Successful

varieties of new seeds can be patented and

the resulting technology licensed for many

millions of dollars to large seed producers

and cotton companies. The confidential

information developed as part of Plaintiff’s

business has significant independent economic

value.

7. During one of my first meetings with

Plaintiff, he provided me with a copy of a

Consulting Agreement between Jean and O&A

Enterprises, Inc. - a company owned by

Plaintiff ... Plaintiff indicated that he had

not only paid Jean a yearly stipend pursuant

to the Consulting Agreement but that, during

the course of the parties’ relationship,

Plaintiff had provided what he considered to

be highly confidential documents to Jean

which included, but were not limited to,

field plans, seed increase contracts, crop

improvements, permits (for planting and

transportation), and correspondence regarding

the type variety and genetic make-up various

[sic] seeds provided to Defendant for the

test plot. Plaintiff further indicated that

he had requested a return of the documents

when the parties’ relationship collapsed but

had never been able to get a ‘straight

answer’ from Jean as to the whereabouts or

status of the documents. Plaintiff was

concerned that the documents would be given

Case 1:06-cv-00653-OWW -SMS Document 39 Filed 02/15/08 Page 17 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

18

or sold by Jean to a competitor of

Plaintiff’s in the cotton seed development

business. As a result, during my

communications with Mr. Sawyers before suit

was filed, I attempted to secure a statement

from Jean as to the status of the documents -

even if only to confirm that they had been

discarded. Through counsel, Jean steadfastly

refused to provide the confirmation that we

had requested.

8. During Jean’s deposition, ... Jean was

questioned by my partner, William H.

Littlewood, regarding the documents. During

the deposition, Jean testified inconsistently

and evasively, including that the did not

receive confidential information from O & A

Enterprises, and that whatever they had they

returned to Mr. Olvey.

9. I believe that Jean has failed to offer a

reasonable explanation for his inability to

produce the confidential documents requested. 

The Consulting Agreement provides that Jean

will not use, disclose, remove or aid in the

removal of any confidential materials

provided to him by O & A ... Plaintiff’s

sworn discovery responses have established

that a significant quantity of documents were

provided to Jean. Jean remains unable to

account for the documents. While he states

now that the documents are not in his

possession, custody, or control, he has been

unable to state whether, where, when, and how

the documents were destroyed or discarded. 

Additionally, he has not yet denied having

given or sold the documents to a third party,

including (but not limited to) a competitor

of Plaintiff’s or Defendant ERROTABERE

RANCHES ...

10. Based on the testimony developed to

date, it is my good faith belief that the

evidence demonstrates (1) that a significant

quantity of confidential documents were

provided to Jean by Plaintiff, (2) that the

parties’ Consulting Agreement ... provided

that the materials to be given to Jean were

to remain confidential and would be returned

to Plaintiff on demand, (3) that before suit

was filed, Jean refused to account for the

Case 1:06-cv-00653-OWW -SMS Document 39 Filed 02/15/08 Page 18 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

19

whereabouts of the documents in question, (4)

that Jean has only stated now that the

documents are not in his possession, custody,

or control - but (a) has been unable to state

whether, where, when, and how the documents

were destroyed or discarded and (b) Jean has

not yet denied having given or sold the

documents to a third party ... As a result of

the foregoing, I believe a reasonable jury

could infer, after weighing the parties’

testimony and assessing the credibility of

the witnesses, that Jean has breached the

terms of the Consulting Agreement. 

Consequently, I believe that the Thirteenth

Claim for Relief is meritorious. None of the

actions that I have taken in this case,

relative to the Thirteenth Claim for Relief,

or otherwise, have been taken in bad faith or

to vexatiously multiply these proceedings.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED. Defendant’s

showing is not persuasive that Plaintiff’s pursuit of the

Thirteenth Claim for Relief was in bad faith or reckless within

the meaning of the standards set forth above.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above:

1. Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication of the

Thirteenth Cause of Action is GRANTED and Defendants’ request for

sanctions is DENIED.

2. Counsel for Defendants shall prepare and lodge a form of

order that the rulings set forth in this Memorandum Decision

within five (5) days following the date of service of this

decision.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 15, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00653-OWW -SMS Document 39 Filed 02/15/08 Page 19 of 19