Free Proposed Order - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-02748-MHP

Document 16

Filed 06/01/2007

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

HARVEY SISKIND LLP IAN K. BOYD (State Bar No. 191434) Email: [email protected] SETH I. APPEL (State Bar No. 233421) Email: [email protected] Four Embarcadero Center, 39th Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: 415.354.0100 Facsimile: 415.391.7124 Attorneys for Plaintiff Mark Lillge d/b/a Creative Marketing Concepts

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION MARK LILLGE d/b/a CREATIVE MARKETING CONCEPTS Plaintiff, v. ANDREW VERITY and CHRISTINA CHANG Defendants. Case No. C 07-02748 MHP [PROPOSED] TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel Date: May 31, 2007 Time: 2:00 p.m. Courtroom 15

This matter came on for determination before the Honorable Marilyn Hall Patel on May 31, 2007, upon the application of plaintiff Mark Lillge d/b/a Creative Marketing Concepts ("CMC") for a temporary restraining order and order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue against defendants Andrew Verity and Christina Chang (collectively, "Defendants"). After hearing the evidence and argument of counsel, the Court finds that: (a) (b) (c) CMC has demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits; CMC will be irreparably harmed in the absence of the requested relief; The requested relief will not cause disproportionate hardship to Defendants or others; and
­1­ [PROPOSED] TRO AND OSC WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE CASE NO. C 07-02748 MHP

Case 3:07-cv-02748-MHP

Document 16

Filed 06/01/2007

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

(d)

The public interest favors granting the requested relief.

Accordingly, the Court hereby grants Plaintiff's application for a temporary restraining order. For good cause therefor appearing, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. Defendants, and any person or entity acting in concert with them, are hereby

temporarily restrained and enjoined from: (a) Disclosing, copying, distributing, exploiting, disseminating or otherwise

misappropriating for their own use or benefit, or the benefit or use of any third party who is not authorized to receive or have access to, CMC's Trade Secrets;1 (b) (c) Soliciting any entities that were customers of Plaintiff as of May 11, 2007; Doing business with any entities that were customers of Plaintiff as of May 11,

2007, whom Defendants solicited on behalf of any party other than CMC after they initiated their employment with CMC, whether such solicitation occurred before or after the effective date of this Order; (d) Destroying any documents or files of any kind, actively or passively, whether

in written or electronic form, that relate in any way to CMC's employment of Defendants, or CMC's Trade Secrets. To the extent that any such documents or files have been destroyed by Defendants, they are to provide Plaintiff with an itemized list of such documents or files within seventy-two hours of this Order. 2. Defendants are required to return to Plaintiff's counsel, within seventy-two hours of

this Order, all property, documents, files, reports, and/or other CMC proprietary materials, if any, that Defendants have in their possession, custody or control, that were obtained from CMC, properly or improperly, in connection with Defendants' work and employment for CMC. 3. Within seventy-two hours of this Order, Defendants are required to furnish Plaintiff

with a list of CMC customers whom Defendants have solicited on their own behalf, or on behalf of any party other than CMC, after they initiated their employment with CMC.

CMC's Trade Secrets are described with reasonable particularity on CMC's Identification of Trade Secrets, filed on June 1, 2007.
­2­ [PROPOSED] TRO AND OSC WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE CASE NO. C 07-02748 MHP

1

Case 3:07-cv-02748-MHP

Document 16

Filed 06/01/2007

Page 3 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

4.

Defendants are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why they should not be

preliminarily enjoined in the manner set forth above. A hearing on CMC's motion for preliminary injunction is set for Monday, July 9, 2007. Defendants' opposition brief, if any, shall be filed and served by hand delivery, no later than Monday, June 11, 2007. CMC's reply brief, if any, shall be filed and served by hand delivery, no later than Monday, June 18, 2007. 5. Each party shall be permitted to take two depositions between now and the hearing

date noted above. The scope of these depositions shall be limited to the subject matter of this Temporary Restraining Order. 6. This Order shall be effective immediately upon CMC posting a bond for $100,000

with the Clerk of the Court. This Order will remain in effect until the Court rules on CMC's motion for preliminary injunction, at or following the hearing on July 9, 2007, in accordance with the parties' stipulation on the record at the May 31 hearing to extend this Temporary Restraining Order until that time, pursuant to F.R.C.P. 65(b).

Dated: June ___, 2007.

________________________________ Honorable Marilyn Hall Patel United States District Court

­3­ [PROPOSED] TRO AND OSC WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE CASE NO. C 07-02748 MHP