Opinion ID: 694171
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Definition of Confidential Information

Text: 33 Trans-Rim also claims that the district court erred in instructing the jury that the confidential information as defined in the Confidentiality Agreement was limited to information that was (1) in writing, and (2) marked confidential, secret, proprietary, or with words to that effect. Trans-Rim asserts that the district court's interpretation violated fundamental principles of contract interpretation. More specifically, Trans-Rim contends that the instruction was erroneous because Coors and Trans-Rim intended the Confidentiality Agreement also to encompass intangible information and documents that were not stamped confidential or with similar words. 34 The challenged jury instruction provided as follows: 35 The Court has determined as a matter of law that the written Mutual Confidential Disclosure Agreement entered into by the parties in May of 1989 required that confidential information which the parties intended to protect under that agreement had to be in writing and marked confidential, secret, proprietary, or words to that effect[.] 36 We believe that the instruction accurately reflects the unambiguous language of the Confidentiality Agreement which provides, in pertinent part, that: 37 Confidential Information as used herein shall include all information emanating from the Parties, their employees and agents, which relates to the Mill, the Plants, the attendant processes and facilities, the Products of the Mill and Plants and shall include, but shall not be limited to, trade secrets, technical information, designs, drawings, processes, systems, procedures, formulas, test data, know-how, improvements, price lists, financial data, purchasing and sales strategies, supplies, vendors, sketches and plans (engineering, architectural or otherwise), and any other compilation of information whatsoever, in written form and marked confidential, secret, proprietary, or the like ...[.] 38 Trans-Rim argues that the parties intended to protect information which was not in writing, such as know-how, and written information that was not stamped confidential, such as the Linerboard Mill Feasibility Report prepared by Hipp Engineering Ltd. in August 1989. If a contract is unambiguous, however, extrinsic evidence is not admissible to prove the parties' intent, and the parties' intent must be determined from the terms of the contract. Fibreglas Fabricators, Inc. v. Kylberg, 799 P.2d 371, 374 (Colo.1990). The Confidentiality Agreement defines as confidential all information (1) emanating from the parties; (2) relating to the project; (3) which is the type of information given in the examples; and (4) which is in written form and specifically marked confidential or with words to that effect. The final phrase, in written form and marked 'confidential,' 'secret,' 'proprietary,' or the like is set apart by punctuation and clearly modifies the entire preceding paragraph. Accordingly, the jury instruction requiring that confidential information be in written form and appropriately marked fairly guided the jury as to the unambiguous meaning of confidential information. 39