Filed: Jun. 09, 2017
Latest Update: Jun. 09, 2017
Summary: ORDER NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS , District Judge . On May 12, 2017, Plaintiff Von Rohr Equipment Corp. filed this action seeking monetary and injunctive relief against Defendants Tanner Bolt & Nut Corp. ("Tanner"), Jeff Tannenbaum, and Brian Schroder. (Compl. (Dkt. 1).) Plaintiff alleges that Tanner and Tannenbaum obtained certain confidential business information from Schroder, who was formerly employed with Plaintiff, and are using that information to achieve an unfair commercial advantage ove
Summary: ORDER NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS , District Judge . On May 12, 2017, Plaintiff Von Rohr Equipment Corp. filed this action seeking monetary and injunctive relief against Defendants Tanner Bolt & Nut Corp. ("Tanner"), Jeff Tannenbaum, and Brian Schroder. (Compl. (Dkt. 1).) Plaintiff alleges that Tanner and Tannenbaum obtained certain confidential business information from Schroder, who was formerly employed with Plaintiff, and are using that information to achieve an unfair commercial advantage over..
More
ORDER
NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS, District Judge.
On May 12, 2017, Plaintiff Von Rohr Equipment Corp. filed this action seeking monetary and injunctive relief against Defendants Tanner Bolt & Nut Corp. ("Tanner"), Jeff Tannenbaum, and Brian Schroder. (Compl. (Dkt. 1).) Plaintiff alleges that Tanner and Tannenbaum obtained certain confidential business information from Schroder, who was formerly employed with Plaintiff, and are using that information to achieve an unfair commercial advantage over Plaintiff. (See, e.g., id. ¶ 1.) The Complaint seeks, among other things, preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining Defendants from using any of Plaintiff's confidential information that is allegedly in their possession. (See id. at ECF pp.18-19.) Plaintiff also sought a temporary restraining order("TRO")immediately enjoining Defendants from using the confidential information. (See Unsigned Order to Show Cause(Dkt. 3).)
Following an ex parte hearing held on May 12, 2017, the court granted Plaintiff's motion for a TRO and ordered Defendants to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be issued. (Order to Show Cause (Dkt. 9); see also May 12, 2017, Min. Entry.) The court further directed that hearings on the preliminary injunction would be held before Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. (See Order to Show Cause at 2).
Following the evidentiary hearings, Judge Reyes issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R")on the record on May 17,2017, recommending that the court deny Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. (May 17, 2017, R&R.) No party has objected to Judge Reyes's R&R,and the time to do so has passed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1).1 (See also May 17, 2017, R&R("Objections to this R&R must be filed with the Honorable Nicholas G. Garaufis by 5/31/2017.").) Therefore, the court reviews the R&R for clear error. See Andrews v. LeClaire. 709 F.Supp.2d 269, 271 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); La Torres v. Walker, 216 F.Supp.2d 157,159 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); cf. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court has reviewed the record of the hearings held before Judge Reyes and, finding no error, ADOPTS IN FULL the R&R. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
