Chryso, Inc. v. Innovative Concrete Solutions of the Carolinas, LLC et al

Filing 41

ORDER denying 17 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Senior Judge W. Earl Britt on 7/1/2015. (Marsh, K)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
NO: 5:15-CV-115-BR
CHRYSO, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

INNOVATIVE CONCRETE
SOLUTIONS OF THE CAROLINAS,
LLC, CAROLINAS CONCRETE
SOLUTIONS, INC., DANIEL
MATTHEWS, and BRIAN
MATTHEWS,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

This matter is before the court on plaintiff Chryso, Inc’s (“Chryso”) motion for a
preliminary injunction. (DE # 17.)
By way of background, on 20 March 2015, Chryso initiated this action against its former
employee, Daniel Matthews (“Danny”); its former sales representative/independent contractor
and Danny’s son, Brian Matthews (“Brian”); Innovative Concrete Solutions of the Carolinas,
LLC, a business incorporated by Brian and of which he and Danny are officers and directors; and
Carolinas Concrete Solutions, Inc., a corporation through which Danny previously sold products
and which employs (or employed) Brian and Danny. In short, Chryso contends that
Danny [], acting in concert with the other Defendants, resigned from Chryso
along with Brian [], refused to return his company computer, copied countless
Confidential and Trade Secret files onto external storage devices, and then deleted
the information from his Chryso computer. Armed with a trove of Chryso’s
confidential information and trade secrets, the Defendants are now competing
directly with Chryso, and as a result Chryso’s sales for the region at issue have
dropped nearly 85% as compared to the same month during the previous year.

(Pl. Mem. Supp. Mot. Exped. Disc., DE # 20, at 2.)
In its verified complaint, Chryso alleges that Danny violated the Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(C); engaged in computer trespass in violation of N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 14-458; breached the non-compete, non-solicitation, and non-disclosure provisions of his
employment agreement with Chryso; and breached fiduciary duties owed to Chryso. It further
alleges that all defendants have misappropriated Chryso’s trade secrets in violation of North
Carolina’s Trade Secrets Protection Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 66-152, et seq.; engaged in unfair
competition in violation of North Carolina’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, et seq.; converted Chryso’s trade secrets for their use; engaged in a
conspiracy; and tortuously interfered with Chryso’s prospective business relations. Chryso
further alleges that Brian, ICSC, and CCS aided and abetted Danny’s breach of fiduciary duties
and tortuously interfered with Danny’s employment contract with Chryso. It seeks
compensatory and punitive damages, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, and attorneys’
fees and costs.
On 27 March 2015, Chryso filed the instant motion. By way of the instant motion,
Chryso requests that defendants be prohibited from using Chryso’s trade secrets and confidential
information and from competing unfairly with Chryso; be required to return to Chryso its trade
secrets and confidential information and to produce certain electronic storage devices; and that
Danny be prohibited from selling admixtures to certain regional customers of Chryso. On 1
April 2015, Chryso filed a motion for expedited discovery “to obtain evidence to bolster [its]
motion [for preliminary injunction] and also to determine the proper scope of the requested
preliminary injunction.” (DE # 19, at 3.) According to Chryso, it is important “to conduct that
discovery prior to the hearing on its preliminary injunction motion.” (Id. at 3-4; see also Pl.

2

Mem. Supp. Mot. Exped. Disc., DE # 20, at 3 (“The expedited discovery that Chryso seeks is
necessary for the Court and the parties to obtain relevant evidence prior to the preliminary
injunction hearing . . . .”).) On 30 June 2015, U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II
granted in part and denied in part Chryso’s motion for expedited discovery. (DE # 38.)
Because Chryso is being allowed to obtain expeditiously some additional evidence in
support of its motion for preliminary injunction, the court concludes that it is prudent to deny
Chryso’s motion without prejudice to its refiling once it obtains any such evidence. This
conclusion is bolstered by the fact that the court is not required to hold a hearing on the motion
for preliminary injunction, Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a), 78(b); Local Civil Rule 7.1(i), and in fairness to
Chryso, the only way it may be able to get the additional evidence before this court is through
the filing of additional briefs. Rather than order supplemental briefing, it is more efficient to
deny the motion without prejudice and permit Chryso to refile the motion with the benefit of
additional evidence and revised briefing. Of course, if Chryso determines that additional
evidence need not be submitted to the court, it can summarily renew the instant motion.
Accordingly, Chryso’s motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
This 1 July 2015.

__________________________________
W. Earl Britt
Senior U.S. District Judge

3