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
[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
MARC BERNSTEIN, CA Bar No. 145837
[e-mail]
WILL FITTON, CA Bar No. 182818
10 [e-mail]
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