Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 50415

P H IL IP L . S T O T T E R , P h .D P l a i n tiff-A p p ell a n t v. U N IV E R S IT YO F T E XA S A T S A N A N T O N IO ; G U YB A IL E Y ; D AV ID J OHNS ON D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he W es t er n D i st r i c tof Texas U SD C N o. 5: 01- C V

- 434

B ef ore D AV IS, W IE N E R , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R IA M: * Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l antPhi l i p St o t t e r , f o r m e r l y a c he m i s t r y pr o fe s s o ra tt he U nive r s i t y o f

Te xa s - Sa n A n t on i o (U TSA) , i s b e f o r e t hi s c o ur tf

o rt he s e c o nd t i m e o n hi s 4 2 U
. S. C. § 19 83 c as e i m pl i c at i ng due pr o c e s s c l ai m s ar i s i ng f r o m t he
a l l eg ed d ep riva ti on of p rop erty w i th ou t n oti ce an da re a son a b l e op p ortu n i ty to b e he a rd
. T h i s ti m e he i s a p p ea l i n g t h e dist ri ct cou rt’ s gr a n t of D efen d a n tA ppel l ee G uy B ai l ey’ s R ul e 5 0(b) M ot i on f ora Judgm entas a M at t erof Law United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April8, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-50415 Document: 00511075106 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/08/2010N o. 09- 50415

2 (JM O L) f

ol l ow i ng a j ury ver di c tfavor abl e t o Sto t t erat t he conc l usi on of the t r i al th a t fo llo w e do u rre m a n do f th is a s p e c t o f S to tt e r ’ s o r ig in a l a p p e a l. W e af f i rm th e j u dg m en tof t h e di st ri ctcourtbased on i t s det erm i n ati on t h at Stot t er had n o protec t able property i n t eresti n vari ou s notebooks t h at are al l eged t o h ave been l ost or destr oyed f ol l ow i n g t h e cl ean i n g of S t ot t er’ s offi ce a n dl a b ora toryat B a i l ey ’ s be h est. I
. FAC T S A ND P RO CE ED I NG S t ot t er, a t en u red chem i st ry professorat U T S A , w as em pl oyedthere f rom 197 4 t o 200 2 as a researc h professor . U T S A provi ded S t ot t er w ith lab o ra t ory spac e, eq ui pm ent , and ot herr es our c es . O n se ver aloc c as i ons begi nni ng i n 1998, St o t t e rw as i nf

o r m e d t hathi s l ab o r at o r y and o f f i c e s pa c e po s e d s af

e t y haz ar ds and w er e o t her w i se notk epti n goo d orde r . A s ear l y as O c t obe r31, 2000, he w as i nf or m ed i n w r i t i ng t hathe m ustaddr es s t hes e c onc er ns o rhi s l ab w oul d be
c l o s e d. The n, o n t he s am e da y i n Ja nuar y 20 01 , St o t t e r r e c e ive d t w o l e t t e r s , o ne a d visi n g th a t his l a b w ou l d b e cl ose dan dtha t U T S Aw ou l dh a ve i t cl ea n ed ou t, andt he o t he ri nf

o r m i ng hi m t hats uc h a c t i o n was b ei n g t ake n o n i ns t r uc t i o ns f rom B ai l ey i n hi s c ap aci t y as P rovost
. Th at act i on then took place on F ebru ary 26, 2001. S to tt e rfile ds u it in s ta te co u r t in M a yo f th a t y e a r . A fte rS to tt e r ’ s s u it
w a s re m o v e dto th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, s u m m a r yju d g m e n t w a s g r a n te din fa v o ro f a ll de fe nda nt s , w hi c h j udg m e ntw as af f i r m e d o n a ppe ale xc e pta s t o St o t t e r ’ s due p roce ss clai m ag a i n st B a i l ey , w h i ch w a s rem a n d ed f or fu rth er d i sp ositio n . A j ur y t r i alo n t hatc l ai m f o l l o w e d. A tt h e cl ose of

S t ot t er’ s case a n d aga i n at t h e cl ose of t h e evi den ce, B ai l ey
m ad e m ot i on s f

or a JM O L pu rsuan t t o R u l e 50(a) , assert i n g t h at Stot t er di d n ot h ave a p rot ect able i n t eresti n an y of t h e property l osti n t h e cl ean u p. Th ose
m o t i o ns w e r e de ni e d, a nd t he j ur y f o und t hatB ail e y hadv i o l at e d St o t t e r ’ s r i ght t o no t i c e , t hatSt o t t e rha d apr o pe r t y i nt e r e s ti n v ar i o us i t e m s i n hi s l ab, a nd Case: 09-50415 Document: 00511075106 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/08/2010N o. 09- 50415

3 t hathe w as ent i t l ed t o $ 175, 000 f orthe l os s of

hi s r es ear c h not ebo oks , butw as en t i t l ed to n ot h i n g f

or the al l egedlos s of

the chem i cal s, g l assw are, an d the l i ke. F ol l ow i n g t h e j u ry’ s verdi ct , B ai l ey renew ed h i s JM O L m ot i on , t h i s t i m e un der R ul e 5 0(b) , w hi c h m ot i on w as gr ant ed byt he di st r i c tc our t , and j udgm entw as
r ender ed i n favorof

B ai l ey. II. A N A L Y S IS A s ath r e s h o ldm a tt e r , S to tt e ra r g u e s t h a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e din
c o n s id e r in gB a ile y ’ s R u le 5 0 (b ) m o tio n b e c a u s e it so d iffe r e d in c o n te n t fro m h is
e ar l i e rRul e 5 0( a) m o t i o ns a s t o c o ns t i t ut e w aive r . Af t e rhe ar i ng o r ala r gum e nt b ya b le co u n s e l fo rb o th p a r tie s , c o n s id e r in gth e a p p lic a b le la w a s p r e s e n te din t he par t i es ’br i efs, and r evi ew i ng t he r ec or d on appe al , w e a r e sa ti sf i ed t hat Bai l e y’ s Rul e 5 0(b) m o t i o n was s uf f i c i e nt l y r e f

l e c t ive o f

hi s Rul e 5 0( a) m o t i o ns as t o a vo i d waive r . The di s t r i c tc o ur tw as , t heref ore, e nt i t l e d t o c o ns i de ra nd
r ul e o n Bai l e y’ s q ue s tf o raJ M O L unde rhi s Rul e 5 0(b) m o t i o n. L ik e w is e , o u rd e n o v o r e v ie w o f t h e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s r u li n go n B a il e y ’s J M O L m oti on satisf i es u s th a t it w a s p rov i d en tlyg r a n te d
. S totter fa i l ed to p rese nts uf

f i c i entev i denc e t o e st abl i sh t hathe had a pro t ec t abl e pr operty i nt er es ti n th e su b j ect not ebo oks
. Acc or di ngl y, no r eas onabl e j ury c oul d have fou n dthe pr ese n ce of su ch an i n teres t w h en , a s h ere , th e l a w d oe s n ot all ow i t. St ot t er ’ s argum entt hathi s not ebo oks fal lunder t he “ sc hol ar l y o reduc at i onal
m at er i al s” ex c ept i on i n U TS A ’ s I P po l i c y i s not bor ne out by t he e vi denc e. That
exc e pt i o n woul d a pply o nl y i f t he m at e r i al s a ti s s ue w e r e pub l i s he d o re i t her cop yr i gh tedor “cop yr i gh tab l e,” ye t S totter’ s ev i d en ce w a s n ot su ff i ci en t t o dem ons t r at e t hat th e not ebo oks i n ques t i on c ont ai ned m at er i alot hert han
researc h data. A ccor di n gl y, the di st ri ctcou rt ’ s JM O L revers i n g t h e j u ry aw ard to S to tt e ris AF F I RMED. Case: 09-50415 Document: 00511075106 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/08/2010