Free Proposed Pretrial Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:06-cv—OOO55-G|\/IS Document 176-16 Filed 05/O2/2007 Page 1 013
SCHEDULE G—2
1
E
E

Case 1 :06-cv—OOO55-GIVIS Document 176-16 Filed 05/O2/2007 Page 2 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
TESLA INDUSTRIES, INC. a Delaware
Corporation,
Plaintiff
v. C.A. No. 06-55-GMS
DAVID C. WALDMANN, LYNDOL W.
HOLLINGSWORTH, CHARLES MINNICK
a.k.a. CHUCK MINNICK, and NEW
MILLENNIUM TOOLS, INC., an Oregon
Corporation,
Defendants.
SCHEDULE G-2
NMT DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF SPECIAL DAMAGES
AND PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS THERETO
The NMT Defendants seek recovery of the following categories of damages:
1. Attorneys' fees and costs as compensatory damages under Counterclaims
II (Abuse of Process) (see Del. P.J.I. Civ. § 22.l2(3)) and VI (Unfair Competition — State
Common Law) in the amount to date of $404, 689.16.
2. Attorneys' fees and costs as enhancements, pursuant to 6 Del. C. § 2004
(Attomeys' Fees in Bad Faith Trade Secret Cases), Counterclaims I (Declaratory
Judgment of No Trade Secrets), III (Antitrust (Sherman and Clayton Acts)) (see 15
U.S.C. § l5(a)), and VII (Unfair Competition —— State Statutory Law) (see 6 Del. C. §
2533(b)) in the amount to date of $404, 689.16.

Case 1 :06-cv—OOO55-GIVIS Document 176-16 Filed 05/O2/2007 Page 3 of 3
3. Compensatory damages for the harm to their reputation for Defendants
i Minnick, Hollingsworth and New Millennium Tools, Inc. of $10,000 each. (See Del.
P.] .1. Civ. § 22.12(2) (2000)).
4. Compensatory damages for emotional distress for Defendants Minnick
and Hollingsworth each in the amount of $100 per day the case has been pending. (See
Del. P.J.l. Civ. § 22.12(5) (2000)).
5. Treble compensatory damages under Counterclaims 111 (Antitrust
(Sherman and Clayton Acts)) (sée 15 U.S.C. § 15(a)) and VII (Unfair Competition ~
State Statutory Law) (see 6 Del. C. § 2533(c)).
6. Punitive damages pursuant to Counterclaims II (Abuse of Process), VI
(Unfair Competition —— State Common Law) and VII (Unfair Competition — State
Statutory Law), in the amount of $1,000,000.
PLA1NTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO NMT DEFENANTS’
STATEMENT OF SPECIAL DANLAGES
Plaintiff objects to the claim for damages based on the Sherman and Clayton Acts. i
NMT Defendants’ counterclaims for such damages are currently the subject for cross
motions (D1 106 and 109) which challenge the sole basis for such claims (inadvertent A
typographical error in Plaintiffs response to such counterclaims). Plaintiffs further S
object to NMT Defendants’ claims of harm to NMT Defendants’ reputation and
emotional stress because of NMT Defendant’s failure to provide proper notice of such
A claims.