## Facts

- Robert O’Rourke worked for Dura-Bar, an Illinois manufacturer of specialized continuous cast-iron bars, from 1984 until September 15, 2015.
- In 2015, O’Rourke accepted a position with Hualong, a China-based competitor, and resigned from Dura-Bar without disclosing his future employment with a competitor.
- During a brief transition period before his final day, O’Rourke entered Dura-Bar’s facility on a Sunday and downloaded over 1,900 documents from the company network to a personal hard drive without informing the company.
- After O’Rourke disclosed on his last day that he was leaving to work in China for Hualong, Dura-Bar investigated and contacted law enforcement about the document removal.
- On September 21, 2015, U.S. Customs and Border Protection stopped O’Rourke at the airport as he attempted to board a flight to China; the hard drive containing the copied documents was in his checked luggage.
- A grand jury returned a 13-count indictment charging theft and attempted theft of trade secrets under 18 U.S.C. § 1832(a).
- After an April 2019 jury trial, O’Rourke was convicted on seven counts and acquitted on six.
- O’Rourke moved for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33.

## Issues

1. Whether the interests of justice required a new trial because the guilty verdicts were against the manifest weight of the evidence.
2. Whether the evidence supported the elements of theft/attempted theft of trade secrets under 18 U.S.C. § 1832(a), including the existence of trade secrets, unauthorized taking, and the required intent.
3. Whether alleged evidentiary rulings and jury-instruction errors (individually or cumulatively) deprived O’Rourke of a fair trial.

## Decision

- The court denied the Rule 33 motion for a new trial.
- The court found the evidence supported the jury’s determinations that the documents constituted trade secrets and that O’Rourke took them without authorization.
- The court held the jury could infer the required intent to convert the information for the benefit of someone other than the owner and to injure (or knowingly risk injury to) the owner, based on timing, concealment, volume/nature of the documents, and departure to a competitor.
- The court concluded the challenged evidentiary and instructional matters did not warrant a new trial; any potential errors were not prejudicial.
- The mixed verdict (convictions on some counts, acquittals on others) supported the conclusion that the jury carefully evaluated the evidence count by count.

## Legal Principles

- A Rule 33 new trial may be granted “if the interest of justice so requires,” but relief is reserved for exceptional cases where the evidence heavily preponderates against the verdict or there is a serious danger of a miscarriage of justice.
- Information qualifies as a federal “trade secret” when it has independent economic value from not being generally known and the owner takes reasonable measures to maintain secrecy; access controls and confidentiality practices are relevant proof.
- Under 18 U.S.C. § 1832(a), intent to convert trade secrets for another’s economic benefit and intent/knowledge of injury to the owner may be proven through circumstantial evidence, including concealment, timing near departure, and planned work for a competitor.
- A court considering a Rule 33 motion may weigh evidence but generally will not overturn a verdict merely because competing innocent explanations were possible.

## Conclusion

The court denied a new trial because the record supported the jury’s findings that O’Rourke unlawfully copied and possessed Dura-Bar trade secrets and acted with the intent required by 18 U.S.C. § 1832(a), and because the asserted evidentiary and instructional errors did not undermine trial fairness.


United States v. O’Rourke, 417 F. Supp. 3d 996 (N.D. Ill. 2019)