1. Triangle Fire was a fire equipment provider and service company that had employed Andres Davila as a sales representative. As part of his employment contract, Davila signed a noncompetition and nonsolicitation agreement. Davila left Triangle Fire and began working for a rival fire equipment service company, Sea Coast Fire. Triangle Fire ultimately brought suit against both Davila and Sea Coast Fire. In the course of the litigation, Triangle Fire submitted interrogatories and requests for production seeking information regarding Sea Coast Fire's customer lists, customer contact information, and pricing information. Sea Coast Fire objected and filed a motion for a protective order. It alleged that Triangle Fire sought trade secret information. Triangle Fire contended the requested materials were not trade secrets. Without conducting an "in camera" inspection of the requested information or holding an evidentiary hearing, the trial court ordered the production of the discovery. Two days later, the court entered a second order limiting the discovery to certain dates. Do you think the materials sought by Triangle Fire in their discovery request constituted trade secrets? Explain why or why not. [See Sea Coast Fire, Inc. v. Triangle Fire, Inc., So.3d , 2014 WL 6679018 Fla. App. 3 Dist. (2014).]

2. Penny Fox, the plaintiff, filed a complaint against Sara Lee Corporation and John Ziekle, alleging that she had been sexually assaulted by coworker Ziekle, and, as a result, suffered severe mental health problems that led to the loss of her job with Sara Lee. The plaintiff asserted a claim against defendant Sara Lee for intentional infliction of emotional distress, based on Sara Lee's alleged ratification of Mr. Ziekle's conduct. The plaintiff contended that the following proved that Sara Lee ratified Ziekle's conduct: 1. Prudy Yates was the plaintiff's immediate supervisor at the time of the incident; 2. manager Yates told the plaintiff not to report the Ziekle assault; 3. manager Yates never reported the Ziekle assault; and 4. manager Yates's instructions to not report the Ziekle assault and her failure to immediately report the assault herself were done in the line of duty and within the scope of manager Yates's employment. Do you think the employer ratified the tortious actions of its employee, and thus is liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress? What about negligent infliction? [See Fox v. Sara Lee Corp., 764 S.E.2d 624 N.C. App. (2014).] See text, Chapter 3, Problem 12