Torrey Pines Logic, Inc. v. Vitalbo et al

Filing 8

ORDER Granting #3 Ex Parte Motion for TRO. It is ordered that Defendants shall appear for an Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 10/29/2012 at 2:30 PM in Courtroom 05 before Judge Michael M. Anello. Defendants shall show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be issued. Defendant's Response to the OSC is due by 10/1/2012. Plaintiff's opposition papers shall be filed by 10/15/2012, Defendant's reply shall be filed by 10/22/2012. It is further ordered that the Court shall permit limited expedited discovery as mutually agreed upon by the parties. To the extent a discovery dispute arises, or either party seeks a protective order, the parties are instructed to direct such issues to the magistrate judge assigned to the case. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 8/22/2012. (leh)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TORREY PINES LOGIC, INC., a California
corporation,

CASE NO. 12-cv-2013-MMA-RBB
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S EX
PARTE APPLICATION FOR A
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER AND REQUEST FOR
EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

12
Plaintiff,
13

vs.

14
15
16
17

[Doc. No. 3]

NICK VITALBO, an individual, nVISION
TECHNOLOGY, INC., an Ohio corporation,
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendant.

18
19

On July 20, 2012, Plaintiff Torrey Pines Logic, Inc. (“TPL”) filed a complaint against

20

nVision Technology, Inc. (“nVision”) and its President Nick Vitalbo (collectively “Defendants”)

21

in the Superior Court for the State of California, San Diego County. Plaintiff also filed a motion

22

for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”), which was set for hearing in the superior court on

23

August 15, 2012. On August 14, 2012, Defendants removed the action to this Court. [Doc. No.

24

1.] On August 16, 2012, Plaintiff filed the pending ex parte motion for a TRO and request for

25

expedited discovery. [Doc. No. 3.] On August 20, 2012, Defendants filed an opposition to the ex

26

parte application for a TRO. [Doc. No. 4.] On August 21, 2012, Plaintiff submitted a reply to

27

Defendants’ opposition in the form of a supplemental declaration of Leo B. Volfson. [Doc. No. 5.]

28

On August 21, 2012, the Court held a hearing on the ex parte application for a TRO.

-1-

12-cv-2013-MMA-RBB

1

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

2
3

Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral arguments of counsel, for the
reasons for the reasons stated on the record during the hearing, and in accordance therewith:

4

The Court finds that Plaintiff has adequately identified protected trade secrets and that

5

injunctive relief is appropriate to protect this confidential information. Given the allegations

6

against Defendants and the evidence available to the Court at this early stage of the proceedings,

7

the Court finds that TPL has sufficiently demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits and

8

that it may suffer irreparable injury if Defendants are not enjoined. The Court also finds the

9

balance of hardships and public policy favor issuing a TRO.

10

Accordingly, good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request for a

11

Temporary Restraining Order.

12

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

13

1.

Defendants to this action, including their agents, servants, directors, officers,

14

affiliates, attorneys, representatives, employees, and all persons who are successors in interest to

15

or who are acting in concert with one or more of them, or participating with them, are restrained

16

and enjoined from directly or indirectly misappropriating, using or disclosing TPL’s confidential

17

information and trade secrets, including TPL’s Velocity Extracted for Scintillation via Optical

18

Measurement (“VENOM”), VENOM Ballistics Solver (“VBS”), Ballistic Laser Rangefinder

19

(“BLRF”), Intermediate-Range Ballistic System (“IRBS”) and xWinds projects (collectively the

20

“Projects”) and proposals, software codes, technical data, specifications, network architecture,

21

analytical processes, financial data, know-how, customer data, customer lists, and marketing and

22

business development techniques and information relating to the Projects (“Confidential

23

Information”).

24

2.

Defendants shall transfer to TPL all of TPL’s Confidential Information (as

25

described above) and related equipment in Defendants’ possession to TPL within in five (5) days

26

of service of this Order on Defendants.

27

///

28

///
-2-

12-cv-2013-MMA-RBB

1

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall appear on October 29 at 2:30 p.m. in

3

Courtroom 5, to show cause, if any, why a preliminary injunction should not be issued restraining

4

and enjoining Defendants including their agents, servants, directors, officers, affiliates, attorneys,

5

representatives, employees, and all persons who are successors in interest to or who are acting in

6

concert with one or more of them, or participating with them, from directly or indirectly

7

misappropriating, using or disclosing TPL’s confidential information and trade secrets, including

8

TPL’s Velocity Extracted for Scintillation via Optical Measurement (“VENOM”), VENOM

9

Ballistics Solver (“VBS”), Ballistic Laser Rangefinder (“BLRF”), Intermediate-Range Ballistic

10

System (“IRBS”) and xWinds projects (collectively the “Projects”) and proposals, software codes,

11

technical data, specifications, network architecture, analytical processes, financial data,

12

know-how, customer data, customer lists, and marketing and business development techniques and

13

information relating to the Projects.

14
15

SERVICE OF PAPERS
Defendants’ response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) shall be filed and

16

served by October 1, 2012. Plaintiff’s opposition papers shall be filed and served by October 15,

17

2012. Defendant’s reply papers, if any, shall be filed and served by October 22, 2012.

18

EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall permit limited expedited

20

discovery as mutually agreed upon by the parties. To the extent a discovery dispute arises, or

21

either party seeks a protective order, the parties are instructed to direct such issues to the

22

magistrate judge assigned to the case.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

DATED: August 22, 2012

25
26
27

Hon. Michael M. Anello
United States District Judge

28
-3-

12-cv-2013-MMA-RBB