Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ******************************************************

JOHN W. EVANS ET AL. v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION (SC 17420)
Sullivan, C. J., and Borden, Norcott, Palmer and Zarella, Js. Argued October 25, 2005--officially released March 28, 2006

Frank P. Porcelli, with whom were Robert J. Silverman, Steven D. Ecker and, on the brief, Susan Dixon, for the appellants (plaintiffs). Jonathan F. Putnam, pro hac vice, with whom were Jeffrey R. Babbin, Lee Ann Stevenson, pro hac vice, and, on the brief, John T. Hickey, Jr., pro hac vice, Jonathan M. Freiman, and Zachary S. Brez, pro hac vice, for the appellee (defendant). William F. Gallagher filed a brief for the Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association as amicus curiae.
Opinion

ZARELLA, J. In this action seeking damages for the alleged misappropriation of a trade secret, the plaintiffs, John W. Evans and Evans Cooling Systems, Inc. (ECS),1 appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, General Motors Corporation (General Motors). The plaintiffs claim that the trial court improperly: (1) deprived them of the right to a jury trial on their trade secret claims; (2) failed to impose appropriate sanctions on General Motors after finding that key employees of the company had fabricated evidence and testified falsely about that evidence in their depositions; (3) determined that General Motors' special defenses of license and release barred the plaintiffs' trade secret claims; and (4) precluded the plaintiffs from introducing evidence that the technology used in General Motors' ``Gen III'' engines was ``substantially derived'' from the allegedly stolen secret. Because we conclude that the trial court improperly deprived the plaintiffs of the right to a jury trial on their trade secret claims but imposed appropriate sanctions on General

Motors for its employees' discovery abuse, we reverse in part the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for a new trial. The following facts are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. Evans is an inventor of various automotive cooling system techniques and improvements in the field of internal combustion engines. Prior to 1984, he began work on technology to implement an aqueous reverse flow cooling system, which he regarded as a trade secret. Thereafter, beginning in April, 1984, and continuing through February, 1989, Evans was employed by General Motors as a consultant and performed various engineering projects for the company. During that time, none of his work for General Motors involved the technology that he had developed for the aqueous reverse flow cooling system. In February, 1989, however, Evans received a telephone call from Al Gunther, a General Motors engineer, who requested that Evans demonstrate the system to the company. Evans informed Gunther that he would be willing to do so, but, because he considered the technology used in the system to be proprietary in nature, it would have to be a ``black box'' demonstration ``whereby the [technology] would not be disclosed or submitted to [General Motors] and [General Motors] would not compromise the secrecy of [the system].'' According to Evans, Gunther agreed to these conditions. On February 27, 1989, Evans prepared and delivered to Gunther a memorandum setting forth the conditions to which they had agreed. The only consideration that Evans would receive for the ``black box'' demonstration was access to the written results of the testing and an agreement of nonappropriation between the parties. On March 16 and 17, 1989, Evans demonstrated the system to General Motors engineers and other employee technicians at a General Motors testing facility in Michigan. Evans claims that, at some time during the two days that he was in Michigan, General Motors violated the terms of the ``black box'' agreement by examining the test car that was equipped with the protected technology. Evans later testified at trial that he did not discover the theft until the fall of 1991, when he came across a cover story in an automotive journal announcing an innovative, new cooling system in the Corvette that was identical to the aqueous reverse flow cooling system that he had demonstrated to General Motors in 1989. He testified that only after he read the story did he realize that someone must have broken into the test car on the night of March 16, 1989, approximately two and one-half years earlier, to examine the secret technology.2 In 1994, Evans commenced this action against General Motors seeking to recover damages3 for: (1) misap-

propriation of a trade secret in violation of the Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA), General Statutes

Download Evans v. General Motors Corp..pdf

Connecticut Law