176 



5 through page 18. line 13). The fimn policy clearly prohibits diKlosure of any nuoen involving 

 cHenu to persons outside the dnn. 



During the Defendant's cmpk>ynient with the Plaintiff Wy»tt he wu penmBed 

 »cce» to confidentJa] matters involving the Intervening Plaintiff B A W. Apparently, whfle 

 eojployed be made copies of docunmts al the finn and took tbem hoine (or nuy have taken the 

 otiginali out of the office, copies, then returned them). Tlie DefetKlaat, through coonael, 

 lubsequently on July 9. 1993, notified the PlaintifF of ttie existence of this separate file. On 

 advice of counsel these documents were returned. The Defiendant Aea threatened to sue the 

 Plaimiflj unless his daitu for proposed mjuries were settled. 



The Plaimifls have lepeatedly referred to the Defendant u a tfiief and 4at hil 



actions resulted in a theft of documents from the Plaintiff Wyatt Clearly in oor cunwt age of 



photocopy technology and under our rules of evidence (KRE 1003 and 1004) a copy may be the 



equivalent of the original. The Deflmdant's actions could potentially fell unda the purview of 



sevenl statutes within the penal code inch>ding Burglary in the Third Degree (KRS 511.040) or 



Crinainal Trespass is the First Degree (KRS 311.060) assuming he entered iolo die building 



wi^out permission and with intent to take documcnu afler his employment coded or at any time 



he did not so have pemiission. Other potential charges inchide Theft By Extottioa (KRS 



S 14.080) although it would appear there would have to be a threat of a lawsuit to acooopliah a 



theft and not a theft and then threatening a lawsuit The defense set out in KRS 514.080(2) is 



an afBmative defense which wouki have to be asserted after the Defendant is so charged. 



Aoodter possibility inchidcs Misapplicxtioo of Entrusted P rop e rti es (KRS 517.110). 



