RRK HOLDING CO. v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO.
563 F.Supp.2d 832 (2008)
RRK HOLDING COMPANY, Plaintiff,
SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO., Defendants.
No. 04 C 3944.
United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.
May 27, 2008.
Lee F. Grossman, Jeffrey Mark Drake, Mark M. Grossman, Grossman Law Offices, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.
Cameron Matthew Nelson, Jeffrey G. Mote, Mark R. Galis, Richard Daniel Harris, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DAVID H. COAR, District Judge.
Before this Court are the post-trial motions of defendant Sears, Roebuck and Co.'s ("Defendant") and plaintiff RRK Holding Company ("Plaintiff). For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new trial or remittitur, on damages is denied; and Plaintiffs motion for prejudgment and post-judgment interest is granted.
In a two-count complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant breached the Nondisclosure Agreement (Count I) and misappropriated Plaintiffs trade secret (Count II) by disclosing Plaintiffs next generation combination power tool. A jury trial was held from November 5, 2007 through November 19, 2007. On November 19, 2007, the jury returned a verdict finding Defendant liable for breach of the Nondisclosure Agreement and for misappropriating Plaintiffs trade secret. Judgment on the verdict was entered on November 27, 2007, awarding Plaintiff $11,664,105 for actual losses, $1,688,136 for unjust enrichment, and $8,011,344 for punitive damages.
Subsequently, Defendant moves for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new trial or remittitur, on damages. Plaintiff moves to amend the judgment to include prejudgment interest and post-judgment interest.
I. Defendant's Renewed Motion For Judgment As A Matter of Law or, In The Alternative, For a New Trial Or Remittitur, On Damages
Defendant moves for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) or for a new trial or remittitur pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a). Judgment as a matter of law is appropriate when "a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue." Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a)(1). In deciding the motion, the court will consider "whether the evidence presented, combined with all reasonable inferences permissibly drawn therefrom, is sufficient to support the verdict when viewed in the
light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is directed.... In other words, [the court is] limited to assessing whether no rational jury could have found for the plaintiff." Emmel v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co.,95 F.3d 627, 629 (7th Cir. 1996). The court "may not step in and substitute its view of the contested evidence for the jury's." Id. at 634. For a Rule 59(a) motion for new trial, the party seeking relief must show that the jury awarded excessive damages, or the trial was not fair to the moving party. See Gen'l Foam Fabricators, Inc. v. Tenneco Chem., Inc.,695 F.2d 281, 288 (7th Cir. 1982). If the court finds that damages are excessive, the proper remedy is remittitur rather than a new trial. The court will order a new trial only if the plaintiff refuses to accept the remittitur. See Davis v. Consol. Rail Corp.,788 F.2d 1260, 1263 (7th Cir.1986).