With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Torts § 757 emt. b (1989)). 119 Even viewing all of the facts and drawing all of the inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to CDC, see Bingham v. Roosevelt City Corp., 2010 UT 37, ¶ 10, 235 P.3d 730, we agree with the trial court that CDC has not carried its burden of setting forth sufficient facts to create a genuine issue of material fact as to the first prong of the statutory definition-that the pricing information was not generally known and not readily ascertainable by proper means. 120 CDC points to no record evidence of how its pricing information was in fact developed. Nor does it cite to any record evidence indicating that its pricing information or its method for obtaining pricing information is unique or especiall 6 TS, 2008 WL 2004327, at *8 (D.Utah May 9, 2008) (<HOLDING>); Delto Med. Sys., Inc. v. Mid-America Med.

A: 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
B: 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
C: holding that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to establish an agency relationship for service to be effective
D: 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
B.