Mahamedi et al v. Paradice et al

Filing 107

ORDER DENYING 102 PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 4/20/2017. (ejdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/20/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 SAN JOSE DIVISION 10 11 MAHAMEDI IP LAW, LLP, et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-02805-EJD United States District Court Northern District of California Plaintiffs, 12 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER v. 13 14 WILLIAM PARADICE, Re: Dkt. No. 102 Defendant. 15 16 On February 17, 2017, this Court issued an evidence preservation order directing that 17 18 forensic clones shall be made of all of Defendant’s computers and drives “that were used to store 19 (even temporarily) Plaintiffs’ confidential, proprietary, or trade secret information.” Dkt. No. 69. 20 During a hearing on April 13, 2017, the parties agreed that Defendant had fully complied with the 21 order. Dkt. No. 96. However, Plaintiffs now claim that newly discovered evidence shows that Defendant has 22 23 failed to comply with the evidence preservation order. Specifically, Plaintiffs point to an April 17, 24 2017, email from Yip Li, who was Mahamedi’s former associate (and who now practices law with 25 Defendant), indicating that Li had discovered emails from former clients in his mailbox. Dkt. No. 26 100-2. 27 28 1 Case No.: 5:16-cv-02805-EJD ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 1 On that basis, Plaintiffs have filed an ex parte request for a temporary restraining order 2 (“TRO”) “to direct the cloning of all Paradice & Li, LLP repositories” and to “lift[] the stay of 3 discovery ordered by the Court at Dkt. No. 59.” Dkt. No 102 at 2. 4 Plaintiffs have failed to show that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm absent a TRO. 5 Under the Court’s existing evidence preservation order, Defendant is required to allow cloning of 6 “Paradice’s personal and work computers, his iPad, and any other computer drives (both local or 7 stored offsite or in the ‘cloud’) that were used to store (even temporarily) Plaintiffs’ confidential, 8 proprietary, or trade secret information.” Dkt. No. 69 (emphasis added). If Plaintiffs’ sensitive 9 information exists on Paradice’s drives that have not yet been cloned, the existing order indicates that they shall be cloned. To the extent that Plaintiffs seek cloning of drives that belong to 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 nonparties, the Court declines to expand its evidence preservation order. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ 12 request for a TRO is DENIED. 13 The Court also notes that this is Plaintiffs’ third request for a TRO in four months (see Dkt. 14 Nos. 40, 60, and 102), none of which have been granted. Plaintiffs may not request further 15 TROs without submitting a signed declaration 16 (1) stating that lead counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendant have met and conferred in person to resolve the dispute that is the subject of the TRO request; 17 18 (2) stating the time and place of that meeting; and 19 (3) explaining Plaintiffs’ efforts to resolve the dispute without Court intervention. 20 21 22 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 20, 2017 ______________________________________ EDWARD J. DAVILA United States District Judge 25 26 27 28 2 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

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?