GEA Farm Technologies, Inc. v. Peeples, 1:18-cv-00756-DAD-EPG. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180615967
Visitors: 6
Filed: Jun. 14, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 14, 2018
Summary: ORDER PURSUANT TO STIPULATION GRANTING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Doc. No. 27) DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . On June 4, 2018, GEA Farm Technologies, Inc. ("plaintiff") filed the complaint in this action against Steven Peeples ("defendant"). (Doc. No. 1.) At the same time plaintiff filed a motion for temporary restraining order ("TRO") and/or preliminary injunction seeking an order prohibiting defendant from using or de
Summary: ORDER PURSUANT TO STIPULATION GRANTING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Doc. No. 27) DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . On June 4, 2018, GEA Farm Technologies, Inc. ("plaintiff") filed the complaint in this action against Steven Peeples ("defendant"). (Doc. No. 1.) At the same time plaintiff filed a motion for temporary restraining order ("TRO") and/or preliminary injunction seeking an order prohibiting defendant from using or des..
More
ORDER PURSUANT TO STIPULATION GRANTING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
(Doc. No. 27)
DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.
On June 4, 2018, GEA Farm Technologies, Inc. ("plaintiff") filed the complaint in this action against Steven Peeples ("defendant"). (Doc. No. 1.) At the same time plaintiff filed a motion for temporary restraining order ("TRO") and/or preliminary injunction seeking an order prohibiting defendant from using or destroying plaintiff's allegedly confidential information, as well as other preliminary relief. (Doc. No. 2.) On June 6, 2018, the court set a hearing on the motion for a TRO on June 12, 2018. (Doc. No. 7.) Defendant filed an opposition to plaintiff's motion on June 12, 2018. (See Doc. No. 18.) Plaintiff filed a reply on June 12, 2018. (Doc. No. 19.)
At the June 12, 2018 hearing on the motion for a TRO, attorneys Jack McCann, Megan Burnett, and Andrew Jaramillo appeared telephonically on behalf of plaintiff and attorney Howard Sagaser appeared in person on behalf of defendant. (Doc. No. 23.) Near the conclusion of the hearing, the possibility of the parties agreeing to a stipulated TRO and a proposed briefing schedule for the motion for preliminary injunction was discussed. (See id.) On June 13, 2018, the parties filed such a stipulation and proposed order. (Doc. No. 27.)
The court has reviewed the parties' stipulation and pursuant thereto finds it appropriate to order the following:1
1. Defendant shall refrain from deleting, destroying, tampering with, or removing any GEA files that are in his possession, custody, or control including, but not limited to, those that reside on any email accounts (including, but not limited to, the email account peeples.steven@gmail.com), servers, computers, external drives or other devices in defendant's personal possession, custody and control (collectively "Peeples' accounts and devices");
2. Effective upon the entry of this order, defendant shall not access or use for any purpose, or otherwise disclose or transmit to any person any GEA files, except that he may disclose GEA files to his counsel for purposes of defending this litigation under the guidance of the stipulated protective order (Doc. No. 24);
3. GEA will not distribute copies of this stipulation and order to any third parties, without first obtaining permission of the court. This order shall remain in effect until whichever is earlier: a ruling on GEA's motion for preliminary injunction or any final resolution and dismissal of this case;
4. The court adopts this modified version of the briefing schedule stipulated to by the parties (See Doc. No. 27 at 3-4):
• June 25, 2018: Deadline for exchange of preliminary witness lists.
• June 25, 2018-July 16, 2018: Limited discovery period.2
• July 20, 2018: Deadline for filing supplemental briefing in support of and in opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 2).3
• Two weeks prior to the hearing date for the motion for preliminary injunction, the parties will exchange final witness lists and exhibit lists for use in the preliminary injunction hearing.
• September 5, 2018 at 1:30 p.m.: Hearing date on the motion for preliminary injunction.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. For purposes of this stipulation and order, the term "GEA files" shall mean any form of paper or electronic files or records pertaining to GEA's business that defendant had access to, or otherwise obtained during the course of his former employment, or has otherwise obtained prior to the date of this order. The GEA files include, but are not limited to, the eleven GEA files identified in Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Amy Verhoeven (Doc. No. 2-9).
2. The parties agree to meet confer regarding an agreed scope and form of discovery limited to the issues raised by the motion for preliminary injunction. If unable to reach agreement, the parties will notify Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean of any disagreements on or before June 25, 2018 and seek a teleconference hearing with Magistrate Judge Grosjean to promptly resolve any such disputes.
3. As stipulated by the parties, the supplemental briefs are designed simply to supplement and not replace the previously filed application for a TRO, opposition, and reply. The parties will file the supplemental briefs simultaneously, and the supplemental briefs are limited to ten pages in length. Responses to points raised in the supplemental briefs shall be addressed at the hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction, and no additional written memoranda will be filed prior to the hearing.
4. This hearing date was selected because the undersigned is currently scheduled to be in trial continuously from August 7, 2018 through the end of the month. If the parties desire to advance the hearing, they may remain in contact with the undersigned's courtroom deputy by email to determine if any of the currently scheduled trials do not go forward allowing this hearing to be advanced. In addition, although the parties requested a full-day evidentiary hearing, out of necessity due to its heavy docket, the court must limit the hearing to a maximum of three hours.
Source: Leagle
