With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 148 Cal.Rptr. 389, 582 P.2d 980 (1978); Adams v. Murakami, 54 Cal.3d 105, 111, 284 Cal.Rptr. 318, 813 P.2d 1348 (1991). Though not the only factors that can be considered in a trade secret misappropriation case, see Biocore, Inc. v. Khosrowshahi, 2004 WL 303194, at *4 (D.Kan. Feb. 2, 2004), both Mattel and MGA request their application here. B. Discussion 1. Nature of the Misconduct The jury found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mattel willfully and maliciously misappropriated MGA’s trade secret information. Some courts treat a finding of willful and malicious misappropriation as support for the “maximum possible amount in exemplary damages.” 02 Micro. Intern., 399 F.Supp.2d at 1079; see also Lundquist v. Reusser, 7 Cal.4th 1193, 1214, 31 Cal.Rptr .2d 776, 875 P.2d 1279 (1994) (<HOLDING>). But this approach strips the Court of its

A: recognizing relationship between malice and reprehensibility
B: recognizing employeremployee relationship between county school board and teacher
C: recognizing the existence of the special relationship
D: holding that the special relationship exception does not apply to the relationship between a student and a school
A.