PROPOSED] STIPULATED PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

ROBERT S. LASNIK, District Judge.

Plaintiffs XPO Logistics, Inc. and XPO Logistics Freight, Inc. (together, "XPO") and Defendant Thomas Michajla ("Defendant"), by and through their undersigned attorneys, stipulate to, and respectfully request that the Court enter, the following Stipulated Preliminary Injunction (the "Order"):

1. To obtain a preliminary injunction, a party must show (1) "that [it] is likely to succeed on the merits," (2) "that [it] is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief," (3) "that the balance of equities tips in [its] favor," and (4) "that an injunction is in the public interest." Arc of Cal. v. Douglas, 757 F.3d 975, 983 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008), and All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2. XPO has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its claims. The information that Defendant forwarded from his XPO company email account to his personal email account likely derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from the disclosure or use of the information, and XPO likely has taken reasonable measures to protect the secrecy of such information. Defendant likely misappropriated the information by forwarding it from his XPO company email account to a personal email account and retaining it following the termination of his employment.

3. Unless a preliminary injunction is granted on the terms set forth herein, XPO likely will suffer irreparable harm through the use or disclosure of such information.

4. The harm to XPO in the absence of a preliminary injunction likely will be significant, in that its interest in maintaining the confidentiality of its trade secrets likely will be irreversibly compromised. Defendant, by contrast, likely will suffer minimal harm, if any, if the proposed preliminary injunction is entered. Thus, the balance of equities favors entry of a preliminary injunction.

5. The public interest, which recognizes the protection of trade secrets, favors entry of a preliminary injunction.

Accordingly, based on the stipulation of the parties, and for good cause, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. Defendant is hereby enjoined from using, disclosing, or accessing any XPO trade secrets currently in his possession, custody, or control, including, but not limited to, (i) any confidential business information related to XPO's customers, revenue, pricing, finances, or marketing, and (ii) any information in emails that Defendant forwarded from his XPO company email account to any personal email account under his direct or indirect control.

2. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), the parties stipulate and agree that XPO need not post a security in connection with this Order.

3. A preliminary injunction is "not a final decision on the merits." See Los Angeles Mem'l Coliseum Comm'n v. Nat'l Football League, 634 F.2d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 1980). Accordingly, nothing in this Order operates or should be construed as a finding or admission by either party concerning any aspect of, and may not be offered as evidence on, the merits of XPO's claims or Defendant's defenses.

4. This Order shall remain in effect until further order of the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.