that Byrne stole its confidential information, Defendants bear the burden to prove that confidential information does not exist. Under black letter Texas law, the party asserting that information is confidential has the burden to establish its confidential nature. Triple Tee Golf, 485 F.3d at 267 (“[Plaintiff] seems to confuse what constitutes a trade secret with the evidence necessary to prove that trade secret.... For [Plaintiff] to succeed on any of these claims, then, it must first prove that it in fact possessed (1) proprietary information, that was (2) valuable to its business” [emphasis in original]); In re Bass, 113 S.W.3d at 739-40(diseussing criteria by which claimant must meet its burden to establish trade secret protection); Chapa v. Garcia, 848 S.W.2d 667, 670 (Tex.1992) (<HOLDING>); Lasser v. Amistco Separation Products, Inc.,
holding that supplier lists can be trade secrets under indianas uniform trade secrets act which uses the same definition of a trade secret as montana holding that it was impossible for the court to say that the information met the definition of a trade secret because the plaintiff failed to present evidence that the information derived economic value from an element of secrecy that is known only to plaintiff and its employees holding that the inevitable disclosure theory can be applied under north carolina law where 1 injunction is limited to protecting specifically defined trade secrets and 2 the trade secret is clearly identified and of significant value holding that disclosure of trade secret without protection of express confidentiality agreement was not fatal to trade secret protection where disclosure occurred during sale negotiation holding that the burden of establishing the true existence of a trade secret and its value to the owner remains on the claimant who must submit evidence relating to the six factors that texas law considers for trade secret status