Language Line Services, Inc. v. Language Services Associates, LLC et al

Filing 184

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 170 Stipulation filed by Language Line Services, Inc., Patrick Curtin, Bryan Lucas, William Schwartz. Signed by Judge James Ware on 9/16/11. (sis, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/16/2011)

7
8

Attorneys for Defendants
WILLIAM SCHWARTZ and
PATRICK CURTIN

RN

R NIA

re

FO

mes Wa
Judge Ja

LI

H

6

RT

5

NO

4

VED
APPRO

A

S
3

UNIT
ED

2

Danielle Ochs-Tillotson, State Bar No. 178677
[e-mail]
Sarah R. Nichols, State Bar No. 233099
[e-mail]
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
Steuart Tower, Suite 1300
One Market Plaza
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone:
415.442.4810
Facsimile:
415.442.4870
E

RT
U
O

1

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C

9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

SAN JOSE DIVISION

13
14

LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES, INC., a
Delaware Corporation,

15
16
17
18
19

Plaintiff,
vs.

STIPULATION CLARIFYING SCOPE OF
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AS IT
RELATES TO DEFENDANT PATRICK
CURTIN

LANGUAGE SERVICES ASSOCIATES,
LLC, a Pennsylvania Corporation; WILLIAM
SCHWARTZ, an individual; and PATRICK
CURTIN, an individual,
Defendant.

20
21

Case No. 10-cv-02605-JW

Judge:

Hon. James Ware

Defendant Patrick Curtin ("Curtin") and Plaintiff Language Line Services, Inc. ("Language

22

Line") (collectively the "Parties") enter the following stipulation clarifying the scope of the

23

Preliminary Injunction issued on July 13, 2010 (ECF Doc. 50), as it relates to Curtin, with

24

reference to the following facts:

25

A.

On June 14, 2010, Language Line initiated the instant action against Curtin, his

26

colleague Defendant William Schwartz, and their then employer Defendant Language Services

27

Associates, LLC ("LSA") (collectively "Defendants"). Language Line alleged various claims

28

against Defendants based on the allegation that Defendants had improperly obtained and used
10933575_1.DOC
1
Case No. 10-cv-02605-JW
STIPULATION CLARIFYING SCOPE OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AS IT RELATES TO
DEFENDANT PATRICK CURTIN

1

alleged confidential customer information in the form of a "September 2009 Report." The

2

September 2009 Report contained a list of 1,219 entities with whom Language Line alleged it had

3

done business in the language interpretation industry.

4

B.

On June 14, 2010, Language Line sought a Temporary Restraining Order and

5

Preliminary Injunction. On July 13, 2010, the Court issued a Preliminary Injunction enjoining

6

Defendants from certain activity related to the entities set forth on the September 2009 Report,

7

including, inter alia:

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Contacting, communicating, soliciting, dealing, or doing business with any of the
customer [sic] or their representatives appearing on the Brian List, the September
2009 Report, or any other document or records containing any of Plaintiff’s Trade
Secrets, except where Defendant LSA has an existing contractual relationship
with such a customer that was not obtained using any of Plaintiff’s Trade Secrets,
and only to the extent necessary for Defendant LSA to satisfy its currently
existing contractual obligations to that customer.
(Order Granting Plaintiff's Application for Preliminary Injunction; Nominating Special Master,
p. 10 ¶ D(3) (ECF Doc. 50, 7/13/10).)
C.

Curtin is no longer employed by LSA. Curtin has left the language interpretation

15

industry and is in the process of identifying potential new employers in other industries. The

16

Parties seek to reach agreement on the scope of the conduct enjoined by the Preliminary Injunction,

17

as it relates to Curtin's potential new employment. As used in this Stipulation the term

18

“employment” means a position for hire whether as an employee or independent contractor, and

19

the term “employee” means an employee or independent contractor.

20
21
22

NOW, THEREFORE, with reference to the above-stated facts, the Parties hereto agree and
stipulate to the following:
1.

Curtin represents and warrants that: (1) he no longer works for LSA; (2) he has left

23

the language interpretation industry, and (3) is in the process of identifying potential new

24

employers in other industries. As used in this Agreement, the term “language interpretation

25

industry” means the business of providing or arranging for the providing of language interpretation,

26

translation and/or localization services (a “language interpretation provider”) through any means,

27

media or technology now or hereafter devised.

28

2.

The Parties agree and stipulate that the language of the July 13, 2010 Preliminary

10933575_1.DOC
2
Case No. 10-cv-02605-JW
STIPULATION CLARIFYING SCOPE OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AS IT RELATES TO
DEFENDANT PATRICK CURTIN

1

Injunction (ECF Doc. 50) (including, without limitation, paragraph D(3) at p. 10) does not preclude

2

Curtin from working for, or doing business with, the entities set forth on the September 2009

3

Report or in any other document or records containing any of Plaintiff’s Trade

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Secrets (as defined in the Preliminary Injunction), provided the work is unrelated to, and is outside
of, the language interpretation industry. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Curtin may not use or
disclose any of the Language Line Trade Secrets for any purpose.
3.

Within five (5) business days of obtaining new employment with a customer on the

September 2009 Report, Curtin will notify the Special Master (under his authority as the Special
Master in this litigation) through his legal counsel of the new employment, including the name of
the employer/commissioning party and his position and responsibilities.
4.

The Parties further agree and stipulate that any dispute over the scope of the conduct

13

enjoined by the Preliminary Injunction, as it relates to Patrick Curtin's potential or actual

14

employment, shall be resolved by first raising the issue with Special Master Tom Denver (so long

15

as he remains appointed to this action by the Court).

16
17
18
19

5.

Should the Preliminary Injunction be dissolved, this stipulation shall terminate.

Should the Preliminary Injunction be modified to exclude one or more of the entities set forth on
the September 2009 Report, the limitations imposed on Curtin herein shall not apply to that and/or
those entities.

20
21

SO STIPULATED.

22

Dated: September 8, 2011

OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK &
STEWART, P.C.

23
24
25
26

By:

/ s / Danielle Ochs-Tillotson
DANIELLE OCHS-TILLOTSON
SARAH R. NICHOLS
Attorneys for Defendants
WILLIAM SCHWARTZ and PATRICK CURTIN

27
28
10933575_1.DOC
3
Case No. 10-cv-02605-JW
STIPULATION CLARIFYING SCOPE OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AS IT RELATES TO
DEFENDANT PATRICK CURTIN

1

Dated: September 8, 2011

HOLMES WEINBERG, P.C.

2
3

By:

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Dated: September 8, 2011

/ s / Steven M. Weinberg
STEVEN M. WEINBERG
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant
LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES, INC. and Third Party
Defendant BRYAN LUCAS
MURPHY ROSEN MEYLAN & DAVITT LLP

By:

/ s / Paul D. Murphy
ROBERT L. MEYLAN
PAUL D. MURPHY
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant
LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES, INC. and Third Party
Defendant BRYAN LUCAS

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10933575_1.DOC
4
Case No. 10-cv-02605-JW
STIPULATION CLARIFYING SCOPE OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AS IT RELATES TO
DEFENDANT PATRICK CURTIN