Free Declaration in Support - District Court of California - California

Case 3:O7—cv—O2748-I\/IHP Document 86-5 Filed O2/O4/2008 Page 1 0f3
EXHIBIT D
TO DECLARATION OF SETH I. APPEL
IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION POR
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT BE
ADJ UDGED IN CONTEMPT AND
SANCTIONED

Case 3:07-cv-02748-l\/IHP Document 86-5 Filed O2/O4/2008 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:07-cv—02748-l\/il-lP Document 75 Filed 11/13/2007 Page 1 of2
1 HARVEY SISKIND LLP I
IAN K. BOYD (State Bar No. 191434)
2 [email protected] `
SETH I. APPEL (State Bar No. 233421)
3 . .
[email protected]
4 Four Embarcadero Center, 39th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
5 Telephone: (415) 354-0100
6 Facsimile: (415) 391-7124
7 Attorneys for Plaintiff
Mark Lillge d/b/a Creative Marketing Concepts
g _.
9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT I
10
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
l l
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
12
13
MARK LILLGE d/b/a CREATIVE Case No. C 07-02748 MHP
14 MARKETING CONCEPTS,
15 ] ORDER CONFIRMING
I - - SCOPE OF TEMPORARY
Plaintiff,
16 RESTRAINING ORDER AND
17 VS PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
18 ANDREW VERITY and CHRISTINA
CHANG,
19
20 Defendants.
21 )
22
23 On May 31, 2007, the Court heard the application for a Temporary Restraining Order filed by
24 plaintiff Mark Lillge d/b/a Creative Marketing Concepts (“CMC") against CMC’s former employees, .
25 defendants Andrew Verity and Christina Chang. At that time, the Court granted the Temporary
26 Restraining Order, It ruled that "there is to be no transmission or use of — and defining these terms as
27 broadly as possible — of trade secret information in the pursuing of [Defendants’] own business and in
28 pursuing clients and so forth." The Court further held that Defendants were not to "initiate contact" l
_.]..
[PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. C O7-02748 MHP
CONFIRMING SCOPE OF TRO AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 3:O7—cv—O2748-I\/IHP Document 86-5 Filed O2/O4/2008 Page 3 of 3
Case 3:07-cv—02748—i\/Ii—iP Document “/5 Filed 11/13/2007 Page 2 of2
1 with CMC’s clients until further order of the Court, and that "they are not to solicit customers of
2 CMC" during this time.
3 Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, that Temporary Restraining Order remained in effect
4 until the Court ruled on CMC’s request to convert the Temporary Restraining Order into a
5 Preliminary injunction to enjoin defendants in this regard until a full trial on the merits. At the
6 August 27, 2007 preliminary injunction hearing, the Court reminded the parties that the Temporary
7 Restraining Order remained in effect until the Court’s ruling on the preliminary injunction.
8 On October 1, 2007, the Court granted plaintiff s motion, and converted the Temporary
9 Restraining Order into a Preliminary lnjunction. The Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order
10 confirmed that while defendants were "barred from initiating contact wit/7" CMC’s customers,
11 defendants remained free to do business with those customers that contacted them (emphasis in
12 original).
13 This addendum confirms that more than one notification from defendants to CMC’s
14 customers regarding their new business is not permitted under either the Temporary Restraining
15 Order or the Preliminary lnjunction Order (even when such notification in isolation may not be
16 viewed as a solicitation). As confirmed by both Orders, repeated notifications to a customer
17 constitute a solicitation and improper initiation of contact violating the injunctions which have been
18 and are currently in force. See American Credit Indemnity C0. v. Sacks, 213 Cal. App. 3d 622, 637 ‘
19 (1989).
20 IT IS SO ORDERED. QVQYQS DISTRIC]`O
21 Dated: November _9__, 2007
22 ”
23 D ( ,,t. §
24 Q ..,/1-- r ua, 5:
26 {S?
/\/DISTRICT O
27
28 1
..2..
[r~Ror¤osED] oRDER cAsE No. c 07-02748 MHP
conrrrzivrrno score or rRo AND PRELIMINARY rNJuNcrroN _

Case 3:07-cv-02748-MHP

Document 86-5

Filed 02/04/2008

Page 1 of 3

Case 3:07-cv-02748-MHP

Document 86-5

Filed 02/04/2008

Page 2 of 3

Case 3:07-cv-02748-MHP

Document 86-5

Filed 02/04/2008

Page 3 of 3