Filed: Mar. 14, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 14, 2012
Summary: ORDER GREGORY G. HOLLOWS, Magistrate Judge. Amongst the many papers filed in this action thus far, plaintiff yesterday filed twin ex parte applications to amend the complaint (proposing to join other defendants) and for a temporary restraining order against the defendants proposed to be added to this action. (Dkt. Nos. 62, 68.) The court will hear argument concerning the ex parte application to amend the complaint at the March 15, 2012 hearing on the presently scheduled motion for prelimi
Summary: ORDER GREGORY G. HOLLOWS, Magistrate Judge. Amongst the many papers filed in this action thus far, plaintiff yesterday filed twin ex parte applications to amend the complaint (proposing to join other defendants) and for a temporary restraining order against the defendants proposed to be added to this action. (Dkt. Nos. 62, 68.) The court will hear argument concerning the ex parte application to amend the complaint at the March 15, 2012 hearing on the presently scheduled motion for prelimin..
More
ORDER
GREGORY G. HOLLOWS, Magistrate Judge.
Amongst the many papers filed in this action thus far, plaintiff yesterday filed twin ex parte applications to amend the complaint (proposing to join other defendants) and for a temporary restraining order against the defendants proposed to be added to this action. (Dkt. Nos. 62, 68.)
The court will hear argument concerning the ex parte application to amend the complaint at the March 15, 2012 hearing on the presently scheduled motion for preliminary injunction.
The court will not hear argument on a temporary restraining order at the March 15, 2012 hearing for the following reasons. Although plaintiff may have been unaware of the degree to which the proposed defendants specifically participated with the presently named defendant in the acts alleged in the presently operative complaint, there is no doubt, based on previous hearings in this matter, and on the papers filed thus far, that plaintiff has been aware and concerned that the presently named defendant (Steven Souza) has allegedly funneled much proprietary business information to the proposed defendants. Plaintiff has had sufficient opportunity to consider bringing the proposed defendants into the action before this time, and holding a temporary restraining order hearing against defendants located in Iowa, on an amended complaint which has yet to be approved by the court, on essentially little more than one day's notice, is not justified.1
Moreover, in the upcoming motion for preliminary injunction, plaintiff has already sought to restrain the proposed defendants (defendant Steven Souza's present employer and its operative officers) and perhaps others, ostensibly on the basis that the proposed defendants (and others) are "other persons who are in active concert or participation with [defendant Steven Souza]." Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2)(C). The court will be prepared to discuss this request at the preliminary injunction hearing, and its adjudication may moot the need for an accelerated appearance by the proposed Iowa defendants.
Accordingly, the ex parte application to accelerate time in which to hear argument on amending the complaint (dkt. no. 68) is GRANTED; the ex parte application to hear a motion for a temporary restraining order against the proposed defendants (dkt. no. 62) is DENIED.
