FEDERAL JURY RETURNS UNANIMOUS VERDICT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,505,561 FOR WHISTLEBLOWER. U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, First Street U.S. Courthouse - Los Angeles.

On February 28, 2019 a federal jury of eight (8) jurors returned a unanimous verdict of 8 to 0 and awarded damages in the amount of $1,505,561 for the whistleblower Plaintiff. Plaintiff is represented by The Law Office of Jan T. Aune in this case which involves both federal and state whistleblower claims. The Trial Attorney was Jan Aune.

The jurors deliberated for approximately fourteen (14) hours, over a three-day period, before reaching a verdict. Since this jury trial took place in U.S. District Court the jury had to return a unanimous verdict for the Plaintiff to prevail, which it did. Trial Attorney Jan Aune, and The Law Office of Jan T. Aune, thanks the eight (8) jurors who were selected to make-up the jury, the two alternate jurors, and all of the prospective jurors who participated in the jury selection process as part of their federal jury duty.

Plaintiff called ten (10) witnesses in his Case-in-Chief including five (5) employees from California Institute of Technology - Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and Non-Retained Expert witness Leslie Daugherty who testified regarding Plaintiff's emotional distress damages. Defendant ManTech called 3 witnesses in its Case-in-Chief or a total of 13 witnesses over the course of the trial. Witnesses included employees of Defendant ManTech, and Plaintiff subpoenaed witnesses to appear and testify from non-party California Institute of Technology - Jet Propulsion Laboratory. During the course of the Jury Trial approximately 149 Exhibits were entered into evidence.

The Jury Trial lasted 7 days including Jury Deliberations.

Plaintiff's whistleblower claims were (1) retaliation in violation of the False Claims Act ("FCA"), 31 U.S.C. Section 3730(h), (2) retaliation in violation of the Defense Contractor Whistleblower Protection Act ("DCWPA"), 10 U.S.C. Section 2409, and (3) retaliation in violation of California Labor Code Section 1102.5. Plaintiff's whistleblower claims are based upon federal law and California state law

Case: Lillie v. Mantech Int'l Corp.
Federal Case No.: 2:17-CV-2538-CAS-SS
Judge: The Hon. Christina A. Snyder
Court: United States District Court, Central District of
California
First Street Federal Courthouse - Los Angeles,
California.

Plaintiff is represented by The Law Office of Jan T. Aune.
Plaintiff's whistleblower claims were (1) retaliation in violation of the False Claims Act ("FCA"), 31 U.S.C. Section 3730(h), (2) retaliation in violation of the Defense Contractor Whistleblower Protection Act ("DCWPA"), 10 U.S.C. Section 2409, and (3) retaliation in violation of California Labor Code Section 1102.5. Plaintiff's whistleblower claims were based upon federal law and California state law.
Plaintiff's whistleblower claims are based upon Plaintiff reporting that he had received unauthorized access to "classified/proprietary" information of Lockheed Martin during his work on a project involving California Institute of Technology's ("CalTech") Jet Propulsion Laboratory ("JPL"), a federally funded research and development center under the National Aerodynamics and Space Administration ("NASA"), and Plaintiff's then employer ManTech.

FACTS AND BACKGROUND:

On Feb. 6, 2015, plaintiff David Lillie, then age 64, an engineer, was terminated from his position at ManTech International Corp., in Montrose. Plaintiff provided engineering support in fulfillment of the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Caltech RESS contract. While he was helping design the spacecraft's power supply, plaintiff received a classified/proprietary engineering math software that he should not have been given. He reported it and was subsequently terminated.

ManTech was a third-party contractor on a robotic lander designed to study the deep interior of the planet Mars, as part of the Mars InSight Mission. ManTech contracted with the California Institute of Technology Jet Propulsion Laboratory to provide support for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the California Institute of Technology Reliability Engineering Support Services (“RESS Contract”). Funds from NASA were used for the RESS Contract and also to pay ManTech for plaintiff's services.

Plaintiff provided engineering support in fulfillment of the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Caltech RESS Contract. While he was helping design the spacecraft's power supply, plaintiff received a classified/proprietary engineering math software, known as the MathCAD files, of which contractors, such as ManTech, were prohibited from gaining access. Plaintiff reported to ManTech, and Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s (“JPL”) Ethic’s Department that he had received unauthorized access to classified/proprietary software during his work on the project. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff was placed on indefinite furlough and then terminated.
Plaintiff sued ManTech Int'l. Corp, alleging that ManTech's actions constituted whistleblower retaliation and wrongful termination.

THE JURY TRIAL IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff called 10 witnesses in his case-in-chief including non-retained expert witness Leslie Daugherty who testified regarding plaintiff's emotional distress damages. Defendant ManTech called three witnesses in its case-in-chief, including its expert rebuttal witness, for a total of 13 witnesses over the course of the trial. Witnesses included employees of Defendant ManTech, and plaintiff subpoenaed five witnesses to appear and testify from non-party California Institute of Technology - Jet Propulsion Laboratory. During the course of the jury trial approximately 149 exhibits were entered into evidence.

Counsel for California Institute of Technology ("CalTech") – Jet Propulsion Laboratory ("JPL") also attended the trial based upon a February 15, 2019 Federal Court Order. The Federal Court Order was based upon the Court Denying JPL's Ex Parte Application to Quash Plantiff's Trial Subpoenas served on JPL employees and for a Protective Order. On or about February 11,2019, JPL certified itself as an Interested Party in the case. JPL's Ex Parte Application was filed on February 11, 2019, just 8 days before trial was to begin.  Plaintiff filed an Opposition and successfully opposed JPL's Ex Parte Application.  The Order stated in part: "On balance, the Court thus finds that the value and relevance of the requested testimonies outweigh the burden to JPL. Accordingly, to address JPL's concerns that plaintiff seeks to misuse the trial subpoena in an attempt to seek discovery for a putative claim against JPL,the Court will not permit plaintiff to solicit testimony on events unrelated to his operative claims against defendant. The Court will also not permit cumulative testimony. Additionally, counsel for JPL may be present at trial and may raise objections, where appropriate, on grounds of privilege." As a result of the Order, JPL's counsel DLA Piper, by Holly Lake, attended the trial in order object to plaintiff's counsel Jan Aune's questioning of JPL's employee/witnesses as allowed by the Court Order

THE RESULT
Gross Verdict or Award: $1,505,561.00

Economic Damages:
Past lost earnings: $521,983.00
Future lost earnings: $339,828.00
Non-Economic Damages:
Past: $321,875
Future: $321,875
Trial Time: 6 days.
Jury Deliberation Time: Approximately 14 hours.
Jury Polls: 8-0 for Plaintiff.

In addition, the jury deadlocked on awarding the Plaintiff/Whistleblower punitive damages. During jury deliberations the jury sent out Jury Note(s) regarding punitive damages to the Court and the attorneys. The jury provided approximately 14 Jury Notes to the Court and the attorneys during the course of the trial. The jury continued to deliberate on February 27 and 28 but deadlocked on awarding punitive damages and the unanimous verdict was read on February 28, 2019. After the trial some of the jurors advised the 8 jurors had deadlocked 5 to 3 or 4 to 4 on punitive damages.

Also, unbeknownst to the lawyers and parties until after the trial, some of the jurors advised they had awarded approximately $1,000,000 in punitive damages when they returned the Special Verdict Form to the Court the first time; this was prior to the jurors reading Special Verdict Form question numbers 26 and 27. Please see the section directly below entitled "The Special Verdict Form" in order to access the Special Verdict Form.

In addition, due to the jury being deadlocked on the issue of punitive damages, the Court read an Allen Charge instruction to the jury in order to break the deadlock but the jurors remained deadlocked on the issue of punitive damages. Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896), is a United States Supreme Court case that, among other things, approved the use of a jury instruction intended to prevent a hung jury by encouraging jurors in the minority to reconsider. The Court affirmed Allen's murder conviction, after having vacated his two prior convictions for the same crime.

Such an instruction is known as an "Allen Charge" and is given when, after deliberation, a jury reports that it is deadlocked and unable to decide on a verdict. Because it is used to dislodge jurors from entrenched positions, the Allen Charge is sometimes referred to as the "dynamite charge" or the "hammer charge."

HONORS, AWARDS AND PUBLICATIONS

The $1,505,561 Federal Jury Verdict obtained by Mr. Aune on all three federal and state whistleblower claims was the recipient of numerous honors, awards, and publications in the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Australia, India, and other locations from around the world. The Honors, awards, and publications are set out below, here are summaries of some of them:

1. "TopVerdict.com" included the verdict as a winner of one of the Top 10 Whistleblower Retaliation Verdicts in the United States in 2019. The Top 10 Jury Verdict Badge is below. TopVerdict.com published the list in January 2021.

2. "TopVerdict.com" included the verdict as a winner of one of the Top 10 Whistleblower Retaliation Verdicts in California in 2019. TopVerdict.com published the list in July 2020.

3. "TopVerdict.com" included the verdict as a winner of one of the Top 10 Whistleblower Retaliation Verdicts in Los Angeles County in 2019. TopVerdict.com published the list in November 2020.

4. "TopVerdict.com" included the verdict as a winner of one of the Top 10 Wrongful Termination Verdicts in Los Angeles County in 2019. TopVerdict.com published the list in November 2020.

5. "TopVerdict.com" included the verdict as a winner of one of the Top 20 Wrongful Termination Verdicts in California in 2019. TopVerdict.com published the list in November 2020.

6. "TopVerdict.com" included the verdict as a winner of one of the Top 20 Labor & Employment Verdicts in Los Angeles County in 2019. TopVerdict.com published the list in November 2020.

7. "TopVerdict.com" included the verdict as a winner on its list of the Top 50 Wrongful Termination Verdicts in the United States in 2019. The Top 50 Jury Verdict Badge is below. TopVerdict.com is scheduled to publish the list in January 2021.

8. "TopVerdict.com" included the verdict as a winner on its list of California's Top 50 Labor & Employment Verdicts in 2019. Specifically, the $1,505,561 Federal Jury Verdict was Number 25 on the list. The list can be accessed below. The list was published in July 2020.

9. "TopVerdict.com" included the verdict as a winner on its list of the Top 100 Labor & Employment Law Verdicts in the United States in 2019. TopVerdict.com is scheduled to publish the list in January 2021.

10. "TopVerdict.com" included the verdict as a winner on its list of the Top 100 Verdicts in Los Angeles County in 2019. Specifically, the $1,505,561 Federal Jury Verdict was Number 58 on the list. The list can be accessed below. The list was published in November 2020.

11. The City of Lancaster California issued a Commendation to Mr. Aune for the $1,505,561 federal jury verdict,. The Commendation was signed by Mayor R. Rex Parris on April 30, 2019. Mayor Parris is a preeminent trial lawyer in the state of California. The Commendation can be viewed below.

12. "VerdictSeach" included the verdict in Vol. 18, Issue 11, on March 4, 2019. The article can be accessed below. The verdict was listed under Employment - Whistleblower - Retaliation and was one of the two U.S. District Court (federal court) jury verdicts included in the issue, with all of the other verdicts being from California state court.

13.The prestigious "Daily Journal" included the verdict in its "Verdicts & Settlements" section on April 19, 2019. The article can be accessed below in the section entitled "Check Out These Articles on the Verdict"; It is Article Numbers 6 and 7.

14. "Jury Verdict Alert" published an article on the Federal Whistleblower Verdict. Jury Verdict Alert publishes civil jury verdicts obtained in California in state and federal court. The publication has approximately 10,000 trial lawyers as subscribers. The article can be accessed below in the section entitled "Check Out These Articles on the Verdict"; It is Article No. 1.