Toppan Photomasks, Inc. v. Park

Filing 20

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT BE ISSUED. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on July 19, 2013. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/19/2013) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/19/2013: # 1 Certificate of Service) (tlS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

DANIELLE L. OCHS, CA Bar No. 178677
[e-mail]
BECKI D. GRAHAM, CA Bar No. 238010
[e-mail]
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
SteuartTower, Suite 1300
OneMarketPlaza
San Francisco, CA94105
Telephone:
415.442.4810
Facsimile:
415.442.4870
Attorneys for Plaintiff
TOPPAN PHOTOMASKS, INC.

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11 TOPPAN PHOTOMASKS, INC.,

Case No. CV 13-3323 MMC

12

[PROPOSED] TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE WHY A PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT BE ISSUED

13

Plaintiff,
vs.

14 KEUNTAEKPARK, an individual,
15

Defendant.

Complaint Filed: July 17, 2013
Judge:
Hon. Maxine M. Chesney

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No.: CV 133323MEJ
[PROPOSED] TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT BE ISSUED

1

[PROPOSED] TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

2

Pursuant to Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 65-1,

3 Plaintiff’s application for a temporary restraining order and an order to show cause why a
4 preliminary injunction should not issue came before this Court for consideration on
5 2013 at

July 18

,

2:00 p.m. . Upon consideration of the application, and for good cause shown:

6

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

7

1.

The Court finds that Plaintiff Toppan Photomasks, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “TPI”) has

8

demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its claims against Defendant Keun

9

Taek Park (“Defendant” or “Park”) for violation of the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act

10

based on his alleged acquisition of TPI’s trade secrets and breach of contract in connection with his

11

alleged breach of multiple confidentiality agreements between the parties. The Court further finds

12

that Plaintiff has demonstrated that, without an order from this Court, it will suffer irreparable harm

13

and that the balance of hardships strongly favors Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court finds that a

14

temporary restraining order and order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue

15

are in the public interest.

16
17

2.

The Court HEREBY TEMPORARILY RESTRAINS, ENJOINS, and ORDERS

Defendant as follows:

18

a.

Defendant is enjoined from accessing TPI’s computer systems or networks;

19

b.

Defendant is enjoined from possessing, using or disclosing any of TPI’s

20

confidential information and/or proprietary data related to its plasma

21

creation and dry etching processes including but not limited to the

22

information contained in the excel file entitled “work_daily tracking.xlsx”

23

and the word file entitled “work_daily.doc”, both of which were attached to

24

an email dated November 29, 2012 sent from [e-mail] to

25

[e-mail] with a subject line entitled “files” (hereinafter

26

“Trade Secrets”);

27
28

c.

Defendant is required to account (through expedited discovery) for and
return to TPI any and all of TPI’s property, including its Trade Secrets

1
Case No.: CV 1333323MEJ
[PROPOSED] TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT BE ISSUED

1

obtained by Defendant from TPI;

2

d.

Defendant is requried to submit to an inspection of Defendant’s personal and

3

work email, servers, hard drives, computer(s), mobile devises, PDAs, USB

4

drives and other computer equipment utilized by Defendant, including any

5

hosted equipment, by a forensic expert to ensure that any of TPI’s Trade

6

Secrets do not exist on such devices; and

7

e.

Defendant must appear for his deposition within 15 10 days of service of the

8

Court’s order on Defendant.

9

3.

No security is required in this matter. There is no realistic likelihood of harm to

10

defendant from enjoining his conduct as set forth above.

11

4.

12 by

July 22

This Order and all supporting pleadings and papers shall be served upon Defendant
, 2013.

13
14

[PROPOSED] ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

15

Defendant is hereby ordered to appear before the Court at

10:00 a.m.

on

August 1 ,

16 2013, to show cause why this order should not be extended until the conclusion of this litigation.
17
18
19
20

Dated:

July 19

, 2013

___________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
15466069.1

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No.: CV 1333323MEJ
[PROPOSED] TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT BE ISSUED