Free Memorandum in Support - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-02748-MHP

Document 11-2

Filed 05/29/2007

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 Case No. C 07-02748 MHP MARK LILLGE d/b/a CREATIVE MARKETING CONCEPTS Plaintiff, v. ANDREW VERITY and CHRISTINA CHANG Defendants. [PROPOSED] TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel Date: Time: Courtroom 15

This matter came on for determination before the Honorable Marilyn Hall Patel, on May __, 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 11-2

Filed 05/29/2007

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
1

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) Accepting employment, or offering for sale any goods or services, which

would in any way involve calling on, soliciting, attempting to sell, or actually selling any products to the CMC customer list to be submitted by Plaintiff. Plaintiff shall file this customer list under seal, and serve it on Defendants by hand, within twenty-four hours of the Court's entry of this Order; (b) 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, the CMC Confidential Information; 1 2. Defendants are required to return to Plaintiff's counsel, within forty-eight hours, 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.

CMC Confidential Information includes, but is not limited to, "the pricing which CMC charges its customers and CMC's actual and desired profit margin for each customer; CMC's strategic plans regarding which customers it wishes to target, and those that it does not wish to target; the purchasing history of CMC's customers, including the knowledge of when a customer will be due for replenishment/re-order based upon its prior transactions with CMC; the knowledge of CMC's customers' particular buying habits, needs and dislikes; specific customer requirements, preferences, and limitations; negative knowledge regarding goods that certain customers have refused to purchase or no longer wish to purchase; confidential information about actual or prospective customers, suppliers and business partners; and CMC's confidential business, sales, marketing, technical and financial plans, proposals and projections."
­2­ [PROPOSED] TRO AND OSC WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE CASE NO. C 07-02748 MHP

Case 3:07-cv-02748-MHP

Document 11-2

Filed 05/29/2007

Page 3 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

3.

Defendants are enjoined from 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, the CMC Confidential Information, and/or CMC's actual or prospective customers. 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. 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 scheduled for _________________. CMC's opening brief on its motion for a

preliminary injunction shall be filed and served by hand or fax, with overnight delivery, by no later than _____________________; any opposition by Defendants to the motion for preliminary injunction shall be filed and served by hand or fax, with overnight delivery, by no later than ______________________; CMC's reply brief shall be filed and served by hand or fax, with overnight delivery, by no later than _______________. 5. This Order shall be effective immediately upon CMC posting a bond for $100,000

with the Clerk of the Court. Dated: May ___, 2007. ________________________________ Honorably Marilyn Hall Patel United States District Court

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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