factors to be considered in determining trade secret status. See supra 11 17-18. Moreover, nothing in those cases identifies mere use of the information as sufficient to sustain a finding of trade secret status, or even as a factor relevant to that inquiry. On the contrary, a plaintiff bears the burden of proving the existence of a trade secret, "and there is no presumption in [its] favor." See Microbiological Research, 625 P.2d at 696. 123 Midgley did testify that the pricing information took "years" of experience to develop. However, this generality fails to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact for two reasons. First, Midgley did not elaborate on his statement that it took years to develop the pricing information with evidence of how many years it took. CJ. id. at 700 (<HOLDING>). Second, Midgley testified in his deposition
holding that the plaintiff failed to carry its burden of proving that its customer list was a trade secret in part because the sole evidence in regard to the customerlist concerned the expenditures in an unidentified sum 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 holding that the plaintiffs customer list was not a trade secret in part because there was no evidence that by the nature of the plaintiffs business extraordinary effort was involved in compiling the customer list holding that a customer list may be protectable as a trade secret if it is secret and the court examines and determines if it is protectable based on three factors 1 what steps if any an employer has taken to maintain the confidentiality of a customer list 2 whether a departing employee acknowledges that the customer list is confidential and 3 whether the content of the list is readily ascertainable holding that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact that its customer list was a trade secret because the plaintiff presented evidence that the list took ten years and great expense to the company to develop