Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. v. Beard
ORDER. ORDERED that the parties shall submit estimations of the length of a preliminary injunction hearing by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, January 25, 2016. Signed by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 01/21/16. (jhawk, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 15-cv-02231-PAB-KMT
BAKER HUGHES OILFIELD OPERATIONS, INC.,
This matter is before the Court on the Unopposed Verified Motion for Entry of
Preliminary Injunction [Docket No. 9] filed by plaintiff Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations,
Inc. (“Baker Hughes”).
Baker Hughes filed this lawsuit on October 8, 2015, alleging that Mr. Beard
violated an employee agreement which prohibits the disclosure and unauthorized use of
confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information. Docket Nos. 1, 9. In the instant
motion, Baker Hughes moves for a preliminary injunction ordering Mr. Beard and all
those acting in concert with him not to disclose the aforementioned information, to
return any and all confidential information and trade secrets, as well as any other Baker
Hughes property in Mr. Beard’s possession, and to preserve certain information related
to Baker Hughes’ complaint. Docket No. 9 at 11. Baker Hughes states that Mr. Beard,
subject to certain conditions, does not oppose the relief it requests. Id. at 1, ¶ 2.
To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must demonstrate four factors by a
preponderance of the evidence: “(1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a
likelihood that the movant will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary
relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in the movant’s favor; and (4) that the
injunction is in the public interest.” RoDa Drilling Co. v. Siegal, 552 F.3d 1203, 1208
(10th Cir. 2009). “[B]ecause a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, the
right to relief must be clear and unequivocal.” Beltronics USA, Inc. v. Midwest Inventory
Distrib., LLC, 562 F.3d 1067, 1070 (10th Cir. 2009).
It appears that plaintiff submits its motion with the expectation that the Court will
be able to grant it without a hearing. However, plaintiff offers no discussion of how it
meets the four factors necessary for issuance of a preliminary injunction. Even if it did,
the only evidence provided in support of the motion is a copy of the Employee
Agreement, Docket No. 9-1, which is insufficient on its own to prove likelihood of
success on the merits or any of the other factors.
If the parties agree to the return of certain information that Mr. Beard allegedly
took and to the preservation of certain evidence, they may achieve that result without a
court order. To the extent that plaintiff wishes to bind defendant or persons acting in
concert with him through a court order, plaintiff must comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 65.
Because the motion, on its face, is unsupported, the Court will set the motion for a
hearing. Plaintiff may still justify entry of a preliminary injunction without a hearing
through appropriate stipulations that satisfy its burden of proof, but would need to do so
by supplementing its motion.
For the foregoing reasons, it is
ORDERED that the parties shall submit estimations of the length of a preliminary
injunction hearing by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, January 25, 2016.
DATED January 21, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge
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?