Trulite Glass and Aluminum Solutions, LLC v. Smith, et al.

Filing 71

AGREED FINAL INJUNCTION ORDER re Defendants Nathan Witkin, Bryan McNabb signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 2/6/2017 ORDERING the parties to file, within three (3) days, a Stipulation of Dismissal with prejudice of all claims, with each party to bear its own costs. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

JULIE ANN TOTTEN (State Bar No. 166470)
[e-mail]
ERIC R. OLAH (State Bar No 295513)
[e-mail]
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 3000
Sacramento, CA 95814-4497
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
MICHAEL D. WEIL (State Bar No. 209056)
[e-mail]
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
405 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-2669
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
JAMES D. CURPHEY (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
MEGAN E. BAILEY (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
JARED M. KLAUS (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP
41 South High Street, Suites 2800-3200
Columbus, OH 43215-6194
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
TRULITE GLASS AND ALUMINUM SOLUTIONS, LLC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SACRAMENTO DIVISION

20
21
22

TRULITE GLASS AND ALUMINUM
SOLUTIONS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:16-cv-01798-JAM-AC
AGREED FINAL INJUNCTION ORDER
FOR DEFENDANTS WITKIN AND
MCNABB

23
24
25
26

GEOFF SMITH, TYRONE YOUNT,
NATHAN WITKIN, BRYAN McNABB,
PATRICK J. SHASBY, JR. and
CALIFORNIA GLASS & MIRROR CORP.,
Defendants.

Trial Date:
None Set
Date Action Filed: July 29, 2016

27
28
AGREED FINAL INJUNCTION

(CASE NO. 2:16-CV-01798-JAM-AC)

1

This matter came before the Court on the Verified Complaint and Motion for a

2

Preliminary Injunction of Plaintiff Trulite Glass and Aluminum Solutions, LLC (“Trulite”),

3

against Defendants Nathan Witkin (“Witkin”) and Bryan McNabb (“McNabb”) (collectively, the

4

“Defendants”). By agreement of the Parties and for good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED,

5

ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that:

6

1.

Trulite has alleged that the Cal Glass Defendants have misappropriated trade

7

secrets of Trulite in violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.1 et seq. and 18 U.S.C. § 1836 et seq.

8

According to Trulite, the information at issue, which consists of Trulite’s (1) customer data;

9

(2) financial data; (3) business plans and strategies; (4) cost data; (5) pricing; (6) quotes;

10

(7) processes, procedures, and forms; (8) sales detail; (9) product offerings; and (10) employee

11

information, is the subject of reasonable measures to maintain its secrecy and derives independent

12

economic value from not being known to Trulite’s competitors. Trulite alleges that Defendant

13

Witkin acquired the trade secrets by improper means by sending the information to his personal

14

email accounts, and Defendant McNabb shared trade secret information with is future employer.

15

Defendants Witkin and McNabb deny Trulite’s allegations.

16

2.

On October 6, 2016 following oral argument on Trulite’s Motion for Preliminary

17

Injunction, this Court issued an Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction

18

(“Preliminary Injunction”), ECF No. 64. The Preliminary Injunction remains in place, including

19

but not limited to numbered paragraph (3), and nothing in this order shall limit the restrictions

20

imposed upon the Defendants in the Preliminary Injunction.

21

3.

In addition to the restrictions in the Preliminary Injunction, the Defendants are

22

enjoined, whether acting alone or in concert with any person or entity, unless otherwise excepted

23

herein, until June 30, 2017, from initiating contact with certain Trulite customers identified in

24

confidential settlement agreements between the Parties (the “Confidential Settlement

25

Agreements”). These additional prohibitions shall only apply to those customers that the Parties

26

have identified within the Confidential Settlement Agreements.

27
28

4.

This Agreed Final Injunction Order shall be governed by and enforced in

accordance with the laws of the State of California and any action or proceeding to enforce or
-1-

AGREED FINAL INJUNCTION

(CASE NO. 2:16-CV-01798-JAM-AC)

1

arising out of this Agreed Final Injunction Order shall be commenced only in this Court, and the

2

Parties agree that personal jurisdiction and venue for any such action or proceeding will be proper

3

in this Court.

4

5.

Within three (3) days of the entering of this Final Injunction, the Parties shall file a

5

Stipulation Of Dismissal With Prejudice of all claims, with each party to bear its own costs. The

6

Court shall retain jurisdiction over the Parties to enforce the requirements of this Order.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
Dated: 2/6/2017

9
10

///

11

///

12

///

13

///

14

///

15

///

16

///

17

///

18

///

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

/s/ John A. Mendez___
Judge John A. Mendez

///
-2-

AGREED FINAL INJUNCTION

(CASE NO. 2:16-CV-01798-JAM-AC)

1
2

Agreed to by:
Dated: February 6, 2017.

3

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
By:

4

/s/ Eric R. Olah
Eric R. Olah
Attorneys for Plaintiff
TRULITE GLASS AND ALUMINUM
SOLUTIONS, LLC

5
6
7
8

Dated: January 30, 2017.

9

FOX, WANG & MORGAN P.C.
By:

10

/s/ Jay J. Wang
(as authorized on January 30, 2017)
Jay J. Wang
Attorneys for Defendant
NATHAN WITKIN

11
12
13
14
15

Dated: February 6, 2017.

MILLSTONE, PETERSON & WATTS, LLP
By:

16

/s/ Glenn W. Peterson
(as authorized on February 6, 2017)
Glenn W. Peterson
Attorneys for Defendant
Bryan McNabb

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

AGREED FINAL INJUNCTION

(CASE NO. 2:16-CV-01798-JAM-AC)