Toppan Photomasks, Inc. v. Park
Filing
29
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND CONTINUE HEARING ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT BE ISSUED. The August 1, 2013 hearing is continued to August 30, 2013. Any opposition brief shall be filed by August 16, 2013. Any reply brief shall be filed by August 23, 2013. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on July 31, 2013. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/31/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
DANIELLE L. OCHS, CA Bar No. 178677
danielle.ochs@ogletreedeakins.com
BECKI D. GRAHAM, CA Bar No. 238010
becki.graham@ogletreedeakins.com
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
MARC BERNSTEIN, CA Bar No. 145837
mbernstein@blgrp.com
WILL FITTON, CA Bar No. 182818
10 wfitton@blgrp.com
THE BERNSTEIN LAW GROUP. P.C.
11 555 Montgomery St., Suite 1650
San Francisco, CA 94111
12 Telephone:
415.765.6633
Facsimile:
415.283.4804
13
Attorneys for Defendant
14 KEUN TAEK PARK
9
15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
16
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
17
18
TOPPAN PHOTOMASKS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
19
20
21
22
23
vs.
KEUNTAEKPARK, an individual,
Case No. CV-133323 MMC
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
TO EXTEND TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND CONTINUE
HEARING ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
SHOULD NOT BE ISSUED
Defendant.
Complaint Filed: July 15, 2013
Trial Date:
Judge:
Hon. Maxine M. Chesney
24
25
26
27
28
Case No.: CV 133323MMC
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND TRO AND CONTINUE HEARING ON OSC
WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT BE ISSUED
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
RECITALS
WHEREAS:
A.
On July 17,2013, Plaintiff Toppan Photomasks, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “TPI”) filed the
above-captioned action against Defendant Keun Taek Park (“Defendant” or “Park”) (collectively,
the “Parties”) for alleged violation of the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act based on his
alleged acquisition of TPI’s trade secrets, and breach of contract in connection with his alleged
breach of multiple confidentiality agreements between the Parties.
B.
On July 19, 2013, the Court issued a temporary restraining order (“TRO”)and order
to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue (“OSC”) against Park on the grounds
that TPI had demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its claims against
Park. The Court further found that Plaintiff has demonstrated that, without an order from this
Court, TPI will suffer irreparable harm, that the balance of hardships strongly favors TPI, and that
issuance of a TRO and OSC were in the public interest.
C.
The Court set an OSCpreliminary injunction hearing for August 1, 2013.
D.
The parties wish to extend the TRO and continue the OSC preliminary injunction
hearing to August 30 at 9:00 a.m. (and agree to request that the Court so order) to allow
Defendant’s counsel to familiarize himself with the case and to allow the Parties time to explore
the possibility of a stipulated preliminary injunction.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
STIPULATION
NOW THEREFORE, the Parties stipulate and agree as follows:
1.
The Parties agree to continue the August 1, 2013 OSC preliminary injunction
hearing to August 30, 2013 at 9:00 a.m.
2.
The Parties agree that the July 19, 2013 TRO (Doc.#16, attached hereto as Exhibit
A)shall remain in effect through August 30, 2013, or until a preliminary injunction has issued,
whichever occurs first.
26
27
28
1
Case No.: CV 1333323MMC
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND TRO AND CONTINUE HEARING ON OSC
WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT BE ISSUED
1
DATED: July31, 2013
2
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK &
STEWART, P.C.
3
4
By: /s/ Danielle L. Ochs________________
DANIELLE L. OCHS
BECKI D. GRAHAM
Attorneys for Plaintiff
TOPPAN PHOTOMASKS, INC.
5
6
7
8 DATED: July 31, 2013
THE BERNSTEIN LAW GROUP, P.C.
9
10
By: /s/ Marc Bernstein
MARC BERNSTEIN
WILL FITTON
Attorneys for Defendant
KEUN TAEK PARK
11
12
13
14
ATTESTATION OF CONCURRENCE IN FILING
15
In accordance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I attest that concurrence in the filing of this
16
17
18
document has been obtained from Marc Bernstein.
Dated: July 31, 2013
19
20
/s/ Danielle L. Ochs
DANIELLE L. OCHS
BECKI D. GRAHAM
Attorneys for Plaintiff
21
22
////
23
////
24
////
25
////
26
////
27
////
28
////
2
Case No.: CV 1333323MMC
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND TRO AND CONTINUE HEARING ON OSC
WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT BE ISSUED
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER
2
3
For good cause showing, the Court grants the relief requested with the following modifications
to allow for adequate review between the filing of the reply and the date of the hearing:
4
5
6
1.
Exhibit A), shall be extended by agreement of the party, and order of this Court, to August 30, 2013, or
until a preliminary injunction has issued, whichever occurs first.
7
8
2.
The August 1, 2013 OSC preliminary injunction hearing is continued to August 30,
2013 at 9:00 a.m.
9
10
The TRO and OSC issued against Park on July 19, 2013 (Doc. #16, attached hereto as
3.
Any opposition brief shall be filed on or before August 20, 2013 August 16, 2013. Any
reply brief shall be filed on or before August 28, 2013 August 23, 2013.
11
12
13
14
15
Dated:
July 31
, 2013
___________________________________________
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15590895.2
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Case No.: CV 1333323MMC
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND TRO AND CONTINUE HEARING ON OSC
WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT BE ISSUED
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?