Reeves & Associates, PLC v. Muller

Filing 35

ORDER REGARDING EX PARTE APPLICATION [re 34 Ex Parte Application For An Order To Show Case Why Defendant Should Not Be Held In Contempt Of The Court's October 14, 2011 Stipulated Order Granting Injuctive Relief and Protective Order filed by Reeves & Associates, PLC]. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 12/3/2012. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/3/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
REEVES & ASSOCIATES, PLC,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,

No. C 11-04762 WHA

v.
MATTHEW D. MULLER, AND
DOES 1–25, Inclusive,

ORDER REGARDING
EX PARTE APPLICATION

Defendants.
/

16
17

Plaintiff Reeves & Associates, PLC, filed an ex parte motion requesting an order

18

requiring defendant Matthew Muller to show cause for why he should not be held in contempt

19

for violating a stipulated protective order.

20

This action was initially filed on September 2011. It arises from defendant’s alleged

21

misappropriation of confidential and proprietary data during his final days of employment at

22

Reeves. On October 2011, the parties filed a stipulation for an order for injunctive relief and

23

a protective order. Less than two weeks after the stipulation was entered by the Court (Dkt.

24

No. 24), the parties stipulated to a voluntary dismissal with prejudice (Dkt. No. 29).

25

The stipulated order prevents defendant from using, altering or destroying data and

26

requires defendant to deliver certain hard-drives to a computer security firm. The computer

27

security firm was to print out a map of the drive contents to identify any and all of plaintiff’s

28

files on the drives. The parties were to share the costs related to this endeavor.

1

Plaintiff now contends, nearly a year after the action was dismissed, that defendant is in

2

violation of the injunctive relief and protective order by refusing to cooperate in carrying out the

3

mapping of the drives. Plaintiff proceeds ex parte to enforce the terms of the stipulated order.

4

There is not good cause to bring this request ex parte. Plaintiff shall serve this order and

5

motion on defendant who will have until NOON on DECEMBER 14 to file an opposition.

6

Plaintiff’s reply will be due at NOON on DECEMBER 21.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Dated: December 3, 2012.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2