Court Opinion

ID: 9411626
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-27 15:01:07.782105+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:39:32.419521
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11516   Document: 52-1    Date Filed: 07/27/2023   Page: 1 of 18

                                                           [PUBLISH]
                                 In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                               No. 22-11516
                         ____________________

        THE HIGHLAND CONSULTING GROUP, INC.,
                                           Plaintiﬀ-Counter Defendant
                                                             Appellee,
        versus
        JESUS FELIX MINJARES SOULE,

                                                  Defendant-Claimant
                                          Counter Claimant-Appellant,

        TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION, et al.,

                                  Defendants-Third Party Defendants.
USCA11 Case: 22-11516       Document: 52-1       Date Filed: 07/27/2023     Page: 2 of 18

        2                       Opinion of the Court                   22-11516

                              ____________________

                   Appeals from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of Florida
                       D.C. Docket No. 9:19-cv-81636-RLR
                             ____________________

        Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and LUCK and HULL, Circuit
        Judges.
        HULL, Circuit Judge:
                 Plaintiff The Highland Consulting Group, Inc. (“Highland”),
        a consulting firm, sued defendant Jesus Felix Minjares Soule
        (“Minjares”) for misappropriating its trade secrets under the
        Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(1). At
        trial, the jury returned a verdict for $1.2 million in favor of plaintiff
        Highland. The district court carefully used a special verdict form
        on which the jury answered questions and made specific findings
        on each element of plaintiff Highland’s claims.
               On appeal, defendant Minjares does not challenge the jury’s
        findings that the documents he took contained trade secrets and
        that he misappropriated those trade secrets. Instead, Minjares
        contends that (1) plaintiff Highland failed to prove it was an
        “owner” of those trade secrets, as required by the DTSA, and
        (2) the district court erred in denying his motions for judgment as
        a matter of law, or alternatively for a new trial on this ground.
              After careful review of the record, and with the benefit of
        oral argument, we conclude that plaintiff Highland presented
USCA11 Case: 22-11516      Document: 52-1     Date Filed: 07/27/2023     Page: 3 of 18

        22-11516               Opinion of the Court                        3

        sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding on the verdict form
        that plaintiff Highland proved the required ownership by a
        preponderance of the evidence. We thus affirm the judgment in
        favor of plaintiff Highland.
                              I.     TRIAL EVIDENCE
        A.    Corporate Structure

               At trial, plaintiﬀ’s principal witness was James Kerridge, who
        is the founder and 100% owner of “The Highland Consulting
        Group, Inc.,” the named plaintiﬀ. For ease of reference, we call the
        named plaintiﬀ “Highland.”
               Plaintiﬀ Highland is a national consulting ﬁrm composed of
        senior consultants. Plaintiﬀ Highland also has established various
        “local aﬃliates” in diﬀerent countries to make sure that it stays in
        tune with local regulations. Kerridge is also the 100% owner of
        The Plaza Group, Inc., which owns 100% of each of these local
        aﬃliates. Kerridge testiﬁed that the diagram below “accurately
        reﬂect[s]” the corporate structure:
USCA11 Case: 22-11516     Document: 52-1     Date Filed: 07/27/2023     Page: 4 of 18

        4                     Opinion of the Court                22-11516

        The Highland Group Corporate Structure chart shows Kerridge as
        the 100% owner of both (1) the named plaintiﬀ and (2) The Plaza
        Group, Inc. which owns the aﬃliates.
               Defendant Minjares worked as an economic analyst from
        2012 to 2019 and signed a “Non-Disclosure, Non-Solicitation[,] and
        Compliance Agreement” as to the conﬁdential information
        obtained during his employment.
        B.    Plaintiff’s Marketing Name

              During trial, Kerridge testiﬁed that plaintiﬀ Highland uses
        and markets its services under the marketing name of “The
        Highland Group Consultants.” Speciﬁcally, Kerridge testiﬁed:
              Q:     Okay. Mr. Kerridge, the Plaintiﬀ in this case is
                     the Highland Consulting Group, Inc., is that
                     right? The one who is bringing suit against Mr.
USCA11 Case: 22-11516       Document: 52-1       Date Filed: 07/27/2023        Page: 5 of 18

        22-11516               Opinion of the Court                              5

                     Minjares, my client, is an entity called the
                     Highland Consulting Group, Inc., correct?
              A:     Yes.
              Q:     And in opening, your attorney was showing
                     the jury the diﬀerent participants in this
                     process, and we don’t see the name of the Plaintiﬀ,
                     the Highland Consulting Group, Inc., in this list.
                     Can you explain to me why?
              A:     This is the -- the Highland Group Consultants is
                     the name that we present to the marketplace. The
                     name that you are referring to is the legal entity that
                     is bringing suit.
        (Emphases added). In short, plaintiﬀ “The Highland Consulting
        Group, Inc.,” the legal entity bringing this lawsuit, uses the
        marketing name “The Highland Group Consultants” to market its
        services.
        C.    Trade Secret Documents

               Plaintiﬀ Highland’s marketing name—“The Highland
        Group Consultants”—appeared on hundreds of pages of trade
        secret documents that plaintiﬀ Highland introduced and the jury
        reviewed at trial. The use of plaintiﬀ Highland’s marketing name
        on these documents evinces that plaintiﬀ Highland owned the
        trade secrets in the documents.
              The trade secret documents in evidence included (1) part of
        the book called “One Highland,” (2) a 285-page document entitled
USCA11 Case: 22-11516     Document: 52-1     Date Filed: 07/27/2023    Page: 6 of 18

        6                     Opinion of the Court                22-11516

        “Mining Vertical,” and (3) the Prospectus. Minjares does not
        dispute that these particular documents contain trade secrets or
        that he misappropriated them.
               Every single page of the One Highland book in evidence
        displays the named plaintiﬀ Highland’s marketing name and logo:

             In fact, Kerridge and Brian Saville, plaintiﬀ’s chief ﬁnancial
        oﬃcer (“CFO”), both described “The Highland Group
        Consultants” logo as “the Highland logo.”
               Kerridge also testiﬁed about the development and content
        of the trade secret documents. Kerridge testiﬁed he developed the
        One Highland book because he was concerned that the ﬁrm
        “would do business . . . diﬀerently” in the diﬀerent parts of the
        world where it operated. So, Kerridge brought senior people in the
        ﬁrm together in a room to develop guidelines, and this book
        contained plaintiﬀ Highland’s guiding principles at a high level of
        generality. Kerridge explained that the One Highland book is “the
        framework for all of our projects.”
             The Mining Vertical document also contains “The Highland
        Group Consultants” marketing name and logo at the top of each
USCA11 Case: 22-11516     Document: 52-1      Date Filed: 07/27/2023    Page: 7 of 18

        22-11516              Opinion of the Court                        7

        page. This document outlines the ﬁrm’s best practices with respect
        to mining consulting jobs. It was developed by “a specialized team
        of [Highland’s] senior mining focused practitioners, leaders, and
        consultants.” According to Kerridge, the Mining Vertical
        document is the “referral document for our mining teams to give
        them an underpinning of . . . how we do mining projects, [and] . . .
        our experiences in mining projects.”
               Most pages of the One Highland book and the Mining
        Vertical document—watermarked with “The Highland Group
        Consultants”—also contain “© 2013 The Highland Group” in the
        bottom left corner. The contents of plaintiﬀ Highland’s trade
        secret documents thus were copyrighted under the name “The
        Highland Group.” This indicates that named plaintiﬀ Highland
        used its marketing name—“The Highland Group Consultants”—
        along with, and sometimes interchangeably with, the name “The
        Highland Group.”
               Another document Kerridge testiﬁed about was the
        Prospectus, which also refers to both “Highland” and the
        “Highland Group.” The Prospectus “is a set of instructions,
        algorithms, and outputs” that is used to develop business proposals
        for clients. Kerridge testiﬁed that this ﬁnancial model was
        developed so “that we could use [it] consistently across the country
        and across the world” in preparation of the ﬁrm’s proposals.
USCA11 Case: 22-11516     Document: 52-1      Date Filed: 07/27/2023    Page: 8 of 18

        8                     Opinion of the Court                 22-11516

        D.    Plaintiff’s Saucito Project
               Tellingly too, these trade secrets were used to complete
        consulting projects of the named plaintiﬀ—and not just its aﬃliates
        across the world.
               For example, the named plaintiﬀ Highland was a party to a
        three-week Discovery and Design contract with Fresnillo, PLC
        (“Fresnillo”), a Mexican mining company, at its Saucito mine site.
        Saville, plaintiﬀ’s CFO, testiﬁed that the parties to this agreement
        were (1) Fresnillo, and (2) “Highland Consulting Group,” which is
        the named plaintiﬀ here.
               To obtain the contract, plaintiﬀ Highland prepared a
        proposal for a three-week Discovery and Design project at
        Fresnillo’s Saucito mine site. The proposal displayed “The
        Highland Group Consultants” logo at the top of each page.
                Plaintiﬀ Highland also entered into a mutual conﬁdentiality
        agreement with Fresnillo. That agreement was signed by Saville,
        in his capacity as CFO of “The Highland Consulting Group, Inc.,”
        again the named plaintiﬀ here.
                On March 5 or 6, 2019, plaintiﬀ Highland began the three-
        week Discovery and Design project. Kerridge described Discovery
        and Design as “our analytical process where . . . [w]e deﬁne what
        the [client’s] issues are . . . and put together a program on how to
        overcome those barriers.” Discovery and Design precedes the
        implementation phase.             Since plaintiﬀ Highland was the
        contracting party, the jury could reasonably infer the One Highland
USCA11 Case: 22-11516     Document: 52-1     Date Filed: 07/27/2023   Page: 9 of 18

        22-11516              Opinion of the Court                      9

        book, the Mining Vertical document, and the Prospectus were
        used, at least in part, for the Discovery and Design project.
               At the end of the Discovery and Design phase, Fresnillo
        awarded a $2,992,000 contract for the 36-week project phase to
        HCG Advisors Mexico (“HCG Advisors”), the foreign aﬃliate in
        Mexico. Saville, plaintiﬀ Highland’s CFO, explained that he used
        HCG Advisors as the contracting party because he wanted to avoid
        the “headache[]” of “double taxation” that can arise when the term
        of a contract is longer than six months. Defendant Minjares was
        the consultant in charge of the “project phase.”
              On September 25, 2019, Fresnillo abruptly cancelled the
        Saucito mine project with no explanation. At this time,
        approximately $1,200,000 was left on the contract.
              The next day, Minjares resigned and accepted a new job at
        Surge Performance Group (“Surge”), another consulting ﬁrm.
               Then, on September 30, 2019, Minjares used a corporation
        owned by his family in Mexico to partner with Surge and complete
        the Saucito mine project. Minjares had a 20-to-30% ownership
        interest in his family-owned corporation.
        E.    Minjares Returns Confidential Information
              After he resigned, Minjares was asked in October 2019 “to
        return all company property,” but Minjares did not respond.
              Yet, after this litigation commenced, Minjares’s counsel (in
        January 2020) returned ﬁve USB drives containing 15.4 gigabytes of
        data, which included the three “principal” trade secret
USCA11 Case: 22-11516        Document: 52-1        Date Filed: 07/27/2023        Page: 10 of 18

        10                        Opinion of the Court                      22-11516

        documents—One Highland, the Mining Vertical document, and
        the Prospectus.
              The USB drives also contained an “Executive Presentation
        — Nov 2019” slideshow that displayed Surge’s logo but had
        “Highland data” from a presentation “prepared to obtain a sale
        from the Fresnillo group.”
               As part of this litigation, plaintiﬀ Highland located another
        trade secret document that Minjares never returned. This
        document was a sales presentation entitled “Design” that
        (1) contained “Highland material” developed for the Saucito mine
        project, (2) included “references to Highland,” and (3) displayed
        “The Highland Group Consultants” logo on three slides.
                            II.     PROCEDURAL HISTORY
        A.     Pre-Trial Proceedings
               In 2019, plaintiﬀ Highland ﬁled a civil complaint against
        defendant Minjares. Highland’s complaint began with this
        sentence: “Plaintiﬀ, The Highland Consulting Group, Inc. (‘Highland’),
        ﬁles this Veriﬁed Complaint . . . against Defendant Jesus Felix
        Minjares Soule (‘Minjares’).” (Emphasis added). The complaint
        alleged three counts against defendant Minjares, including a DTSA
        trade secret misappropriation claim (“Count 1”). 1

        1 We do not address plaintiff’s breach-of-contract claims in Counts 2 and 3

        because on appeal neither party raises any issues related to these claims. We
        also note that Minjares filed a counterclaim and the jury found for Minjares on
USCA11 Case: 22-11516      Document: 52-1      Date Filed: 07/27/2023      Page: 11 of 18

        22-11516                Opinion of the Court                         11

             After discovery, the parties ﬁled cross-motions for summary
        judgment, which the district court denied.
        B.     Trial, Verdict, and Renewed Motions
               In 2022, the case proceeded to trial.
              After both sides rested, Minjares moved for judgment as a
        matter of law, arguing that plaintiﬀ Highland had not presented
        any evidence that it owned the trade secrets and, therefore, plaintiﬀ
        Highland lacked standing to assert its DTSA claim. The district
        court denied that motion.
              The district court, however, charged the jury that plaintiﬀ
        Highland was required to prove ownership, as follows:
               To prove that The Highland Consulting Group, Inc.
               owns Mining Practices processes and methodologies
               of One Highland, Discovery & DesignTM methods,
               sales presentations with compilations of prior results,
               pricing formulas, or proprietary Prospectus
               algorithms, it must prove that [these trade secrets] are
               The Highland Consulting Group, Inc.’s property.
              As to Count 1, the district court’s thorough verdict form
        contained 14 interrogatories for the jury to answer. Relevant here,
        the ﬁrst interrogatory expressly asked the jury to answer this
        question:

        that counterclaim but did not award him any damages. On appeal, Minjares
        does not challenge that verdict on his counterclaim.
USCA11 Case: 22-11516     Document: 52-1     Date Filed: 07/27/2023    Page: 12 of 18

        12                    Opinion of the Court                 22-11516

              [D]o you ﬁnd by a preponderance of the evidence
              that . . . The Highland Consulting Group, Inc.
              own[ed] any of the Mining Practices processes and
              methodologies of One Highland, Discovery &
              DesignTM methods, sales presentations with
              compilations of prior results, pricing formulas, or
              proprietary Prospectus algorithms . . . ?
        (Emphasis added).
               Notably, the jury was asked if the plaintiﬀ proved it owned
        “any” of the trade secrets. The jury answered “Yes” to this ﬁrst
        interrogatory. Minjares made no objection to this interrogatory.
        On Count 1, the jury returned a verdict for plaintiﬀ Highland in the
        amount of $1,200,000.
              Following the verdict, defendant Minjares renewed his
        motion for judgment as a matter of law and, alternatively, moved
        for a new trial on Count 1. Minjares’s motion reiterated his
        arguments as to standing and ownership. After plaintiﬀ Highland’s
        response, the district court denied the motion.
              Minjares timely appealed.
                                III.   DISCUSSION
               On appeal, Minjares argues that plaintiﬀ Highland did not
        prove that it—as opposed to one of its aﬃliates—was the “owner”
        of the trade secrets. And so, he also argues, plaintiﬀ Highland even
        lacked standing to bring this action because it could not show
        injury-in-fact.
USCA11 Case: 22-11516         Document: 52-1         Date Filed: 07/27/2023          Page: 13 of 18

        22-11516                   Opinion of the Court                                 13

               First, we provide an overview of the ownership requirement
        in the DTSA. Second, we explain why Minjares’s arguments fail.
        A.      The DTSA
                The DTSA provides a federal civil cause of action for “[a]n
        owner of a trade secret that is misappropriated . . . if the trade secret
        is related to a product or service used in, or intended for use in,
        interstate or foreign commerce.” 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(1) (emphasis
        added).
               The statute deﬁnes “owner” as “the person or entity in
        whom or in which rightful legal or equitable title to, or license in,
        the trade secret is reposed.” Id. § 1839(4).
        B.      Minjares’s Motion for a Judgment as a Matter of Law
              Drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of plaintiﬀ
        Highland, we conclude that the record contains suﬃcient evidence
        to support the jury’s ﬁnding that plaintiﬀ owned “any”—in other
        words, at least one—of the trade secrets involved here.2 Actually,
        the evidence, in the light most favorable to plaintiﬀ Highland,

        2 We review de novo the denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

        MidlevelU, Inc. v. ACI Info. Grp., 989 F.3d 1205, 1214 (11th Cir. 2021). “In
        considering the sufficiency of the evidence that supports the jury’s verdict, we
        review the evidence in the light most favorable to, and with all reasonable
        inferences drawn in favor of, the nonmoving party.” Id. (quotation marks
        omitted). “[W]e will reverse only if the facts and inferences point
        overwhelmingly in favor of the moving party, such that reasonable people
        could not arrive at a contrary verdict.” Lamonica v. Safe Hurricane Shutters, Inc.,
        711 F.3d 1299, 1312 (11th Cir. 2013) (second alteration adopted).
USCA11 Case: 22-11516     Document: 52-1     Date Filed: 07/27/2023   Page: 14 of 18

        14                    Opinion of the Court                22-11516

        demonstrated the plaintiﬀ owned multiple trade secrets
        misappropriated by Minjares.
               We start with the trade secret documents themselves. Every
        page in evidence from the One Highland book and the Mining
        Vertical document is stamped with “The Highland Group
        Consultants” logo.
               To be sure, the named plaintiﬀ in this case is “The Highland
        Consulting Group, Inc.,” not “The Highland Group Consultants.”
        Owner Kerridge, however, explained that (1) “[T]he Highland
        Consulting Group, Inc.”—the plaintiﬀ in this case—is “the legal
        entity that is bringing suit,” but (2) “[T]he Highland Group
        Consultants is the name that we present to the marketplace.”
        (Emphases added). In other words, “The Highland Group
        Consultants” is a marketing name for “The Highland Consulting
        Group, Inc.” just like “Publix” is the marketing name for “Publix
        Super Markets, Inc.”
              Together, this testimony and these documents form an
        evidentiary basis from which the jury could reasonably have found
        that the trade secret documents marked with “The Highland
        Group Consultants” logo were owned by plaintiﬀ The Highland
        Consulting Group, Inc.
               In addition, plaintiﬀ’s 100% owner Kerridge testiﬁed that he
        and senior members periodically met in person to develop One
        Highland and that the One Highland book was designed to serve
        as a set of guiding principles in order for Highland consultants to
        do business in a consistent manner around the world. A jury could
USCA11 Case: 22-11516     Document: 52-1     Date Filed: 07/27/2023   Page: 15 of 18

        22-11516              Opinion of the Court                      15

        reasonably infer and conclude (1) that Kerridge developed the
        content of One Highland in his role as owner of plaintiﬀ Highland,
        and (2) that a document created by and meant to be used by
        Highland consultants around the world would be owned by the
        plaintiﬀ—“The Highland Consulting Group, Inc.”—rather than
        any single international aﬃliate.
               The record contains similar evidence about the Mining
        Vertical document. Kerridge testiﬁed the document was developed
        by senior consultants and meant to serve as best practices and a
        “referral document for [the] mining teams” around the world.
        Each page of the 285-page Mining Vertical document bears the
        logo for “The Highland Group Consultants,” not any international
        aﬃliate. A reasonable jury could conclude it too was owned by
        plaintiﬀ Highland, not one of the international aﬃliates.
                Plaintiﬀ Highland’s evidence about the Saucito mine project
        also indicated that the plaintiﬀ owned the trade secrets. The
        contract for the three-week Discovery and Design project at the
        Saucito mine site was with “The Highland Consulting Group,
        Inc.,” the named plaintiﬀ. During the Discovery and Design phase,
        plaintiﬀ Highland developed a proposal to address issues at
        Fresnillo’s Saucito mine site. The jury, for example, could have
        inferred that the “guiding principles” in One Highland and the
        “best practices” in the Mining Vertical document were used by
        plaintiﬀ Highland, as the contracting party, because plaintiﬀ
        Highland developed and owned those trade secrets.
USCA11 Case: 22-11516      Document: 52-1      Date Filed: 07/27/2023     Page: 16 of 18

        16                     Opinion of the Court                  22-11516

                Minjares points out that the trade secrets in the One
        Highland book and the Mining Vertical document were also used
        by the foreign aﬃliates that handled Highland’s consulting projects
        outside the United States. Minjares contends this shows equally
        that any one of the aﬃliates could have owned them. However, a
        reasonable jury readily could have found that plaintiﬀ Highland
        owned these trade secrets and that its foreign aﬃliates used them,
        as Kerridge testiﬁed, to achieve conformity so that the ﬁrm would
        do business in the same way across the world. Indeed, the evidence
        showed that Kerridge as owner of plaintiﬀ Highland developed the
        trade secrets in order to maintain a cohesive and consistent process
        in all of its markets, no matter which entity or aﬃliate conducted
        the project. The existence of these foreign aﬃliates, and their use
        of the trade secret documents to conduct consulting projects, does
        not undermine plaintiﬀ Highland’s claim that it owns the trade
        secrets.
               Minjares also contends that because Highland failed to show
        it was the owner of the trade secrets, it lacked Article III standing
        to assert a DTSA claim. The essence of Minjares’s contention,
        however, is whether the statutory text of the DTSA “grants
        [Highland] the cause of action that [it] asserts.” See Kroma Makeup
        EU, LLC v. Boldface Licensing + Branding, Inc., 920 F.3d 704, 708 (11th
        Cir. 2019) (quotation marks and emphasis omitted). This question
        is “not of standing at all.” Id. (cleaned up).
               The Supreme Court previously referred to this inquiry as
        “statutory standing” or “prudential standing.” Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v.
USCA11 Case: 22-11516        Document: 52-1        Date Filed: 07/27/2023        Page: 17 of 18

        22-11516                  Opinion of the Court                             17

        Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118, 128 n.4, 134 S. Ct. 1377,
        1387 n.4 (2014). In Lexmark, the Supreme Court clariﬁed that these
        labels are “misleading, since the absence of a valid . . . cause of
        action does not implicate subject-matter jurisdiction, i.e., the
        court’s statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case.”
        Id., 134 S. Ct. at 1387 n.4 (quotation marks omitted). Under
        Lexmark, the question is whether the plaintiﬀ “has a cause of action
        under the statute.” Id. at 128, 134 S. Ct. at 1387.
               As the Supreme Court has observed, “a statutory cause of
        action extends only to plaintiﬀs whose interests fall within the zone
        of interests protected by the law invoked.” Id. at 129, 134 S. Ct. at
        1388 (quotation marks omitted). Because the evidence was
        suﬃcient to show that Highland owned the trade secrets, we
        conclude that (1) Highland’s interests fell within the zone of
        interest protected by the DTSA, and (2) Highland has a cause of
        action under the DTSA.
        C.     Minjares’s Motion for a New Trial
              In the alternative, Minjares contends that the district court
        erred in denying his motion for a new trial because plaintiﬀ
        Highland failed to establish that it, as opposed to any other entity,
        “owned any of the Alleged Trade Secrets.” 3 For the reasons

        3 We review the denial of a motion for new trial under the abuse of discretion

        standard. MidlevelU, Inc., 989 F.3d at 1215. “A district court should grant a
        motion for new trial on evidentiary grounds only when the verdict is against
        the great, and not merely the greater, weight of the evidence.” Id. (quotation
        marks omitted).
USCA11 Case: 22-11516        Document: 52-1        Date Filed: 07/27/2023        Page: 18 of 18

        18                        Opinion of the Court                      22-11516

        discussed above, we conclude that Minjares has failed to show that
        the jury’s verdict as to ownership is against the weight of the
        evidence. 4
                                   IV.     CONCLUSION

               We conclude that the trial evidence suﬃciently supported
        the jury’s ﬁnding that plaintiﬀ Highland owned the trade secrets in
        issue. Accordingly, we aﬃrm the denials of Minjares’s motions for
        judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial.
               AFFIRMED.

        4 While in the district court, Minjares’s motion for a new trial challenged the

        amount of the jury’s verdict as excessive, Minjares’s brief on appeal does not
        raise this issue.