DAZZLE SOFTWARE II, LLC et al v. KINNEY et al

Filing 20

ORDER (1) Denying Plaintiffs' 2 Application for Seizure of Defendants' Computer Storage Devices and Computers, and (2) Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' 16 MOTION for Expedited Discovery. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DAZZLE SOFTWARE II, LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 16-cv-12191
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
JOHN KINNEY, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION FOR SEIZURE OF
DEFENDANTS’ COMPUTER STORAGE DEVICES AND COMPUTERS
(ECF #2), AND (2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY (ECF #16)
On June 14, 2016, plaintiffs Dazzle Software II, LLC and L and L Gold
Associates, Inc., d/b/a American Jewelry and Loan (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), filed
this action against defendants John Kinney and Central Ohio Scrap Metal Co.,
d/b/a/ Lev’s Pawn Shop (collectively, “Defendants”). (See Compl., ECF #1.) That
same day, Plaintiffs filed an application to seize Defendants’ computer storage
devices and computers pursuant to the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, 18
U.S.C. § 1836 et seq. (the “Application”). (See ECF #2.) On July 7, 2016,
Defendants filed a motion for expedited discovery (the “Motion”). (See ECF #16.)
On June 15, 2016, the Court held a hearing on the Application and the Motion.

1

For the reasons stated on the record, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the
Application (ECF #2) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion (ECF #16) is GRANTED
IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: The parties shall be permitted to
complete the discovery identified below on an expedited basis (i.e., without further
order of the Court and prior to the holding of the scheduling conference and/or
entry of scheduling order), but such expedited discovery shall not commence until
Defendants have filed their Answer to the Complaint. The permitted expedited
discovery shall consist of the following:
1. Plaintiffs shall be permitted to take the depositions of (a) John Kinney, and
(b) expert(s) retained by Defendants to complete forensic analyses of the
computer storage devices and computers at issue in the Application.
2. Defendants shall be permitted to take the depositions of (a) Seth Gold, and
(b) Mark St. Peter.
3. Plaintiffs shall conduct the deposition of John Kinney first (i.e., before the
depositions are taken of Seth Gold, Mark St. Peter, and any expert(s)
retained by Defendants).
4. The parties may serve requests for documents that are pertinent to the
analyses performed by, and the conclusions reached by, Mark St. Peter and
the expert(s) retained by Defendants.
The Motion is DENIED in all other respects. All other discovery shall
proceed within the time-frame set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall work together to draft
and submit to the Court for entry a proposed stipulated order that prohibits (1) the
destruction of certain physical items (including, but not limited to, computers
and/or flash drives) and/or documents, and (2) the disclosure and/or dissemination
of certain items, documents, and information.

/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: July 18, 2016
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
and/or counsel of record on July 18, 2016, by electronic means and/or ordinary
mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

3