Software Pricing Partners, LLC v. Geisman
ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's 4 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 8/6/2019. (brl)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
SOFTWARE PRICING PARTNERS,
JAMES H. GEISMAN,
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff Software Pricing Partners,
LLC’s (“SPP”) Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, (Doc. No. 4); and the parties’
associated briefs and exhibits. On June 11, 2019, the Court heard oral arguments
from counsel and testimony from Christopher Mele, the managing partner of SPP,
regarding the pending motion. The matter is ripe for adjudication. 1
Although preliminary injunctions are extraordinary remedies, the Court
finds entering a narrowly tailored preliminary injunction here appropriate. Di
Biase v. SPX Corp., 872 F.3d 224, 230 (4th Cir. 2017). In establishing the need for a
preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must show that (1) it is likely to succeed on the
merits, (2) it is likely to suffer irreparable harm if the preliminary injunction is not
The Court is cognizant that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, (Doc.
No. 20), is also currently pending before this Court and that the merits of that motion have yet to be
adjudicated. Noting that Defendant has preserved that defense, the Court enters this order only on
the ground of consent and need not reach the merits of the personal-jurisdiction question at this
juncture. See infra at 2–3.
entered, (3) the balance of equities tips in its favor, and (4) an injunction is in the
public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). A
plaintiff must demonstrate more than just a “possibility” of irreparable harm and a
strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits. Id. at 22.
Despite initially identifying a laundry list of purported trade secrets that it
sought to enjoin Defendant from using or disclosing, upon oral arguments, Plaintiff
admitted that it would be satisfied with the Court entering an injunction that only
prohibits Defendant from using or disclosing the asterisked documents enumerated
in Doc. No. 14-1, which contains a list of documents Defendant allegedly copied from
SPP. (See Doc. No. 22 at 150; Doc. No. 29-1 at 151). Accordingly, the Court
confines its inquiry to Plaintiff’s more limited request.
The list SPP submitted contains 224 asterisked files, and SPP contends that
these 224 files all contain confidential information and/or trade secrets. In response
to SPP filing this exhibit, Defendant submitted a supplemental declaration. (See
Doc. No. 17). Defendant maintains that he “do[es] not have these files on [his]
computer,” and that “if they do exist, they are left over from [his] days working at
SPP, LLC (or perhaps older files from [his] SPP Corp. days) and were not the result
of a June 2018 download).” (Id. ¶ 5). At the time Defendant submitted his
declaration, and at the time of the hearing regarding the pending motion,
Defendant was out of the country. Defendant promised in his Declaration that,
when he returned home to Massachusetts, he would “gladly search [his] computer
for these specific file names, and, if they exist, [ ] delete them (subject to instruction
from [his] counsel regarding [his] document preservation in this matter).” (Id.).
Accordingly, because Defendant has agreed to do the very thing that Plaintiff
sought to obtain in filing its Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, the Court need not
decide whether the 224 files contain actual trade secrets or confidential information
at this early stage of litigation. Rather, through this Order, the Court memorializes
Defendant’s consent to delete any of the asterisked documents contained in Doc. No.
14-1 from his computer and to not use or disclose the contents of those documents.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary
Injunction, (Doc. No. 4), is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Granted
as to Plaintiff's request regarding Defendant's storage, use, and disclosure of the
asterisked documents and their contents contained in Doc. No. 14-1, but denied as
to all other requested relief initially alleged in the Motion due to Plaintiff
narrowing its scope of requested relief at the hearing.
Signed: August 6, 2019
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?