PITTSBURGH - A fudge company can't use contradicting testimony to overturn a jury's verdict that it was using another business' trade secrets when making its product.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Patricia Dodge, of the Western District of Pennsylvania, on Oct. 30 refused to vacate a 2023 verdict in Chocolate Moonshine's lawsuit against Local Yokels Fudge. It was alleged the ex-wife of Christopher Warman used his Chocolate Moonshine recipe at the new company.
A jury had ruled for Warman and awarded his trust $145,777 and also found the trade secret misappropriation was not willful. Key to Warman's claims was that his fudge does not contain doctoring agents that are used in almost all other fudges, referring to an unknown "particular component."
He also said his fudge didn't use water, and neither did Local Yokels'.
Lawyers for Local Yokels, though, sought to benefit from a motion for injunction filed by Warman at the conclusion of trial that claimed Local Yokels was still making his fudge.
Local Yokels said it was now using an old recipe that contained the PC and water. Warman responded with a declaration that said, "I have always recognized and acknowledged that by using [another ingredient], I am introducing [some PC] into the Trade Secret fudge formula."
He also said there is water in other liquid ingredients used in his fudge.
Based on these statements, lawyers for Local Yokels argued to Dodge that Warman had contradicted the testimony he gave at trial. Even Dodge's order that denied the injunction said so.
"Warman's declaration materially contradicts his trial testimony on at least two key matters," she wrote.
So, Local Yokels sought to vacate the jury award because Warman had allegedly testified fraudulently. Dodge wrote the company needed to clear a high bar for a verdict to be overturned.
"Warman never testified, either at trial or subsequently, that the use of another ingredient that contains a small quantity of PC means that the recipe itself contains enough of it to be considered a 'doctoring agent,'" Dodge wrote.
"To the contrary, as Plaintiffs note, he specifically testified that he believes that the minute quantity of PC included as part of another ingredient undergoes a molecular change and no longer functions as a doctoring agent."
Citing several cases, Dodge wrote inconsistencies in testimony don't support a finding of perjury.
"Finally, even if the evidence demonstrated unequivocally that Warman was lying, it does not prove that he was lying at trial, which is the issue here," she added.
"In fact, it is equally plausible that he was telling the truth at trial and then, post-trial, he changed course and contradicted his prior testimony in order to support his motion..."