Agency, LLC v. Trizetto Group, Inc.

Filing 49

ORDER moving hearing from August 1 to August 22, 2011 at 1:30 pm and related orders concering briefing. signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 7/28/2011. (Nazaroff, H)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 AGENCY SOLUTIONS.COM, LLC ) d.b.a. HEALTHCONNECT SYSTEMS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) THE TRIZETTO GROUP, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) CV F 11-1014 AWI GSA ORDER MOVING HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 1, 2011, ORDER PERMITTING SURREPLY AND RELATED ORDERS 16 17 In this action for misappropriation of trade secrets, plaintiff Healthconnect Systems (“Plaintiff”) 18 has moved for preliminary injunction against defendant Trizetto Group, Inc. (“Defendant”). In 19 support of, and in opposition to, Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, the parties have 20 submitted both legal briefs and supporting documents. Two concerns arise. 21 First, the volume of documents submitted is substantially larger than the court normally 22 encounters in regards to preliminary injunctions. The court will require additional time to review 23 the documents provided. 24 Second, the parties stipulated to an Order for Expedited Discovery, which was filed on 25 June 27, 2011. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and Defendants opposition appear to 26 have been filed prior to the conduct of any significant discovery. Plaintiff’s reply to Defendant’s 27 opposition, however, indicates the inclusion of a large number of documents that appears to have 28 been at least in part the product of the expedited discovery process. The court finds that the 1 interests of a more complete consideration of the factual basis of Plaintiff’s motion would be 2 served by providing Defendant an opportunity to submit a sur-reply to Plaintiff’s reply brief. 3 Should Defendant wish to submit a sur-reply, Defendant shall limit the scope of such sur-reply to 4 address specifically those documents and products of expedited discovery that were used by 5 Plaintiff in its reply brief or that were made available during the same period of expedited 6 discovery. 7 A final concern of the court is that the court’s docket is becoming cluttered with redacted 8 versions of documents, unredacted versions of which are later being filed under seal. The court, 9 having reviewed a number of the redacted documents finds they serve no useful purpose and tend 10 to make the recovery of the corresponding unredacted documents more difficult. The court will 11 require that only unredacted versions of documents be submitted to the court unless some 12 particular purpose is served by the submission of a redacted version. 13 14 15 THEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction that was previously 16 scheduled for Monday, August 1, 2011 at 1:30 p.m. is hereby MOVED to Monday, 17 August 22, 2011, at 1:30 p.m. in courtroom 2. 18 2. Defendant may file and serve a sur-reply to Plaintiff’s reply in support of the motion for 19 preliminary injunction not later than 4:30 p.m., Thursday, August 4, 2011. Any sur-reply 20 shall be limited in scope in accordance with the foregoing discussion. 21 3. Any party seeking to file a document with the court containing significant amounts of 22 material requiring confidential treatment shall e-mail the document or documents to 23 together with a request to file under seal and a proposed 24 order to file under seal. Any documents e-mailed to the court with an accompanying 25 request to seal shall be deemed filed on the date and time the e-mail is received. Any 26 party seeking to file a redacted documents shall provide the court with an explanation of 27 28 2 1 why the filing of a redacted document is necessary. 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 Dated: 0m8i78 July 28, 2011 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?