Webgistix Corporation v. DiSorbo et al

Filing 36

ORDER Granting 24 Joint Stipulation re Consent Order for Plaintiff Webgistix Corporation and Joseph Disorbo. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 2/23/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

2
3

WEBGISTIX CORPORATION,

4

Plaintiff,

5
6
7

vs.
JOSEPH DISORBO, KELLY
MATZENBACHER, and TREND NATION,
LLC,

8

Case No. 2:17-cv-00218
CONSENT ORDER ON PLAINTIFF
WEBGISTIX CORPORATION AND
JOSEPH DISORBO’ JOINT
S
STIPULATION

Defendants.

9
10

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS:

11

Plaintiff, Webgistix Corporation, d/b/a Rakuten Super Logistics, Incorporated (“RSL”),

12

and Defendant Joseph DiSorbo, together acting through their below counsel, have conferred as to

13

the matters set forth in RSL’s Complaint and Motion for an Emergency Temporary Restraining

14

Order filed with this Court on January 26, 2017. Pursuant to these conversations, and subject to

15

further Order of the Court, DiSorbo agrees to be bound by the following terms and conditions,

16

without the need for a motion for preliminary injunction by RSL:

17

1.

DiSorbo is enjoined from accessing RSL’s computer systems and networks;

18

2.

Pending final resolution of this matter, DiSorbo is enjoined from using RSL’s

19

confidential and proprietary data and information which is in DiSorbo’s possession, custody, or

20

control for any purpose, including soliciting RSL’s customers;

21

3.

Pending final resolution of this matter, DiSorbo is enjoined from using, disclosing,

22

or infringing upon in any way RSL’s confidential and proprietary data and information or trade

23

secrets which are in DiSorbo’s possession, custody, or control;

24

4.

DiSorbo is enjoined from altering, deleting, and/or copying any information or

25

data maintained in hard copy or electronically which is currently in DiSorbo’s possession,

26

custody, or control and in any way relates to RSL’s Company Confidential Information (as

27

defined in the Confidentiality Agreement attached to RSL’s Complaint) and/or trade secrets, as

28

well as Defendants and their agents’ access or attempts to access RSL’s computer systems

1

following RSL’s termination of DiSorbo and Kelly Matzenbacher, including, but not limited to,

2

information or data contained in any of Defendants’ email accounts or on their computers or

3

devices where data may be stored (including, in the case of DiSorbo and Matzenbacher, any

4

computer provided to them by Trend Nation) (collectively, “Defendants’ electronic devices”);

5

and

6

5.

DiSorbo will preserve any and all information or data maintained in hard copy or

7

electronically which is currently in DiSorbo’s possession, custody, or control and in any way

8

relates to RSL’s Company Confidential Information (as defined in the Confidentiality Agreement

9

attached to RSL’s Complaint) and/or trade secrets, as well as Defendants’ access or attempts to

10

access RSL’s computer systems following RSL’s termination of DiSorbo and Matzenbacher,

11

including, but not limited to, information or data contained in any of Defendants’ email accounts

12

or on their computers or devices where data may be stored, including the computer provided to

13

Matzenbacher by Trend Nation.

14

6.

Within ten (10) Court days following the issuance of this Order, DiSorbo shall

15

identify all digital devices in his possession, custody, or control that were used by him or

16

Matzenbacher and that may contain data relevant to the allegations set forth in the Complaint;

17

7.

Within five (5) Court days following the identification of such devices and email

18

accounts, the parties shall confer to agree upon the naming of a neutral, third-party computer

19

forensic examiner (“the Computer Examiner”) who will serve as an Officer of the Court and will

20

agree in writing to be bound by the Protective Order that will be sought in this case. To the extent

21

the Computer Examiner has direct or indirect access to information protected by the attorney-

22

client privilege, such “disclosure” will not result in a waiver of the attorney-client privilege;

23

8.

As soon thereafter as is reasonably practicable, the parties shall agree on a day and

24

time for the Computer Examiner to inspect DiSorbo’s electronic devices and to make a forensic

25

copy of DiSorbo’s electronic devices (a “mirror image”) for inspection only in the presence of

26

DiSorbo and his attorneys. The Computer Examiner will then perform his/her forensic analysis

27

of the “mirror image” utilizing search terms and other information provided jointly by the parties,

28

but otherwise without interference from either party. The Computer Examiner may use any and
2

1

all reasonable search techniques to recover documents and document fragments (including e-

2

mail) that are relevant to the claims or defenses of any party in this case or to the subject matter of

3

this lawsuit, or appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. The

4

Computer Examiner will be required to disclose the search protocol and search terms that he/she

5

uses to analyze the hard drive. In this manner, the Computer Examiner’s work easily can be

6

replicated, if necessary, and evaluated;

7

9.

After the Computer Examiner completes his or her analysis of the “mirror image”,

8

it will be returned to DiSorbo’s counsel along with a Report consisting of (a) a printed copy of all

9

documents, e-mail and document or e-mail fragments that the Expert recovers; (b) a printed list of

10

available date and time information, including when documents were last accessed, last written,

11

created, or modified; and (c) an electronic copy of the same information;

12

10.

DiSorbo’s counsel will then review the recovered documents and produce to RSL

13

all non-privileged documents that are responsive to RSL’s forthcoming written discovery

14

requests, and which are relevant to the subject matter of this litigation within twenty (20) Court

15

days following receipt of the Expert’s report or within thirty (30) days following service of RSL’s

16

Request for the Production of Documents and Electronically Stored Information, whichever is

17

later. All documents that are withheld on a claim of privilege will be recorded in a privilege log

18

that will be produced to RSL as soon as practicable;

19

11.

DiSorbo’s counsel will be the sole custodian of and shall retain the “mirror image”

20

and copies of all documents retrieved from DiSorbo’s electronic devices throughout the course of

21

this litigation. To the extent that documents cannot be retrieved from DiSorbo’s electronic

22

devices or the documents retrieved are less than the whole of data contained therein, the

23

Computer Examiner shall submit a Declaration to the Court together with his/her written report

24

explaining the limits of retrieval achieved;

25

12.

The parties agree and acknowledge that this Joint Stipulation is not to be construed

26

as an admission by DiSorbo of any violation of any federal, state or local statute, ordinance or

27

regulation, constitutional right, public policy, common law duty or contractual obligation.

28

DiSorbo specifically denies that he engaged in any wrongdoing concerning RSL.
3

1
2

13.

The parties each have the right to move for dissolution or modification of restraints

imposed by this Joint Stipulation upon ten (10) days’ written notice to the other party.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Date: February 23, 2017.
__2/6/2017____________

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

/s/ Kenneth M. Kliebard
Kenneth M. Kliebard (Admitted pro hac vice)
Ashley A. Powers (Admitted pro hac vice)
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
77 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601-5094
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

/s/ Patrick G. Byrne
Patrick G. Byrne (Nevada Bar: 7636)
SNELL & WILMER LLP
3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1100
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
[e-mail]
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorney for Defendant Joseph DiSorbo

Christopher J. Banks (pro hac vice pending)
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
[e-mail]
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Samuel S. Lionel
FENNEMORE CRAIG, P.C.
300 S. Fourth Street, Suite 1400
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
[e-mail]
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Webgistix Corporation

23
24
25
26
27
28
4