Leave to Conduct Expedited Discovery (the Motion for Expedited Discovery ) in the abovecaptioned

Similar documents
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO ORDER

SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND 14 CVS 6240

Motion to Stay Arbitration and Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining

SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION COUNTY OF WAKE 13 CVS 7849

being preempted by the court's criminal calendar.

Case3:12-cv SI Document11 Filed07/13/12 Page1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 1:15-cv DPW Document 6 Filed 02/18/15 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Preliminary Injunctive Relief to Protect Trade Secrets and Enforce Non-Competes:

14 th JUDICIAL DISTRICT DISTRICT COURT DIVISION GENERAL CIVIL RULES

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/18/2012 INDEX NO /2012 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/18/2012

Case 1:08-cv Document 14 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 1 of 12

Case 2:17-cv JES-CM Document 25 Filed 01/29/17 Page 1 of 8 PageID 465

DATABASE AND TRADEMARK LICENSE AGREEMENT

Title 10: COMMERCE AND TRADE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) E.D. Case No.

Ellis & Winters, LLP, by Paul K. Sun and Kelly Margolis Dagger, for Plaintiffs AmeriGas Propane, L.P. and AmeriGas Propane, Inc.

SDL Web Click Wrap DEVELOPER SOFTWARE AND DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT RESTRICTED TO USE BY DEVELOPERS. Terms and Conditions

APPEAL A FORCIBLE DETAINER JUDGMENT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION Case No. 3:17-CV-292

Civil Procedure Basics. N.C. Rules of Civil Procedure 7/6/2010

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


9:30 a.m. MOTION CALL, CASE MANAGEMENT, STATUS DATES 10:00 a.m. 2:30 p.m. MATTERS SET BY THE COURT

1. If you have not already done so, please join the conference call.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

McAngus, Goudelock & Courie, PLLC by John E. Spainhour for Defendant American Express Company, Inc.

ADR CODE OF PROCEDURE

Krawiec v. Manly, 2015 NCBC 82.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE September 15, 2006 Session

INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT

THIS CAUSE came on before the undersigned Superior Court Judge on the Attorney

License Agreement. 1.4 Named User License A Named User License is a license for one (1) Named User to access the Software.

12 CVS. Scenic NC, Inc., ) Plaintiff ) ) ) North Carolina Department of MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. ) Transportation, ) Defendant )

JUSTICE JEFFREY K. OING PART 48 PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES

ARTICLE 19: CHANCERY, EMINENT DOMAIN, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS AND MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIES

NC General Statutes - Chapter 1A Article 5 1

Case 4:17-cv TSH Document 76 Filed 04/24/17 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

RULES GOVERNING THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY RULE 5:5. PRETRIAL PROCEDURES AND PROCEDURES RELATING TO CERTAIN JUDGMENTS

NC General Statutes - Chapter 42 Article 7 1

AGREEMENT GOVERNING USE OF VOHC SEAL. THIS AGREEMENT is made this day of, by and. between the Veterinary Oral Health Council ("VOHC") and ("Company").

Case 5:16-cv CAR Document 19 Filed 05/25/17 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

THIS MATTER, designated a complex business and exceptional case and

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. versus Civil Action 4:17 cv 02946

Case 2:16-cv RSL Document 1 Filed 05/25/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE NO.

MEMORANDUM OVERVIEW OF THE UNIFORM TRADE SECRETS ACT

Case 9:17-cv WPD Document 98 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2017 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

NC General Statutes - Chapter 1A Article 8 1

Case 3:13-cv CAB-WMC Document 10 Filed 03/29/13 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

The Murky Waters between Small Claims and Civil District Court

Case 2:09-cv VBF-FFM Document 24 Filed 09/30/2009 Page 1 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:14-cv-23-RJC-DCK

Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN DECISION AND ORDER

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT CHANCERY DIVISION CALENDAR 7 COURTROOM 2405 JUDGE DIANE J. LARSEN STANDING ORDER 2.

Case 1:18-cv NLH-KMW Document 1 Filed 06/22/18 Page 1 of 18 PageID: 1

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/13/ :15 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/13/2015. Exhibit 1.

Case: 3:13-cv wmc Document #: 1 Filed: 02/19/13 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA IN RE: KATRINA CANAL BREACHES CONSOLIDATED LITIGATION NO.

RELIBIT LABS MUTUAL NON DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS SIXTH DIVISION

II. Civil Judiciary: Names and Addresses of Judges, Secretaries, and the Manner in Which Judges Are Assigned to Civil Cases...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

LEWIS A. KAPLAN United States District Judge United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

Case 4:15-cv DLH-CSM Document 5 Filed 05/05/15 Page 1 of 11

Case 1:14-cv CMA Document 14 Filed 05/02/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9

Sale of NPL accounts by Dena Bank Invitation for submission of EoI

Miller v Brunner 2018 NY Slip Op 31036(U) May 29, 2018 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: /2018 Judge: Sylvia G. Ash Cases posted with

SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION COUNTY OF WAKE 12 CVS 16715

Case 3:18-cv M Document 62 Filed 03/09/18 Page 1 of 10 PageID 1084

LOCAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR THE SUPERIOR COURTS OF JUDICIAL DISTRICT 16B

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CEDAR RAPIDS DIVISION. Plaintiff, COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/16/ :55 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/16/2017

Adopted November 10, 2000, by Chief District Court Judge John W. Smith. See Separate Section on Rules governing Criminal and Juvenile Courts Rule

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Software License Agreement

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION Civil Action No.: 3:17-CV-398.

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION AND DERIVATIVE LAWSUIT

Framework Contract for the provision of Reference Mapping Products

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2011 H 1 HOUSE BILL 380. Short Title: Amend RCP/Electronically Stored Information.

Common law reasoning and institutions Civil and Criminal Procedure (England and Wales) Litigation U.S.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-CV-25-FL

CSI WORKSHOP LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR INTERNAL USE

the Notices section below.

ARBITRATION RULES. Arbitration Rules Archive. 1. Agreement of Parties

Case 2:16-cv JHS Document 16 Filed 07/12/17 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA OPINION

TITLE VI JUDICIAL REMEDIES CHAPTER 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS

SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION MECKLENBURG COUNTY 04 CVS 22242

Verrelli v DePinto 2007 NY Slip Op 32915(U) September 13, 2007 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: / Judge: Stephen A.

ELECTRONIC ARTS SOFTWARE END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT SYNDICATE

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

INDIVIDUAL PRACTICES IN CIVIL CASES Nelson S. Román, United States District Judge. Courtroom Deputy Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION

Devos, Ltd. v United Returns, Inc NY Slip Op 51379(U) Decided on September 28, Supreme Court, Suffolk County. Emerson, J.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KOOTENAI ) ) Case No.

NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 2 January 2007

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION

Transcription:

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA MITCHELL COUNTY IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION 14 CVS 141 UNIMIN CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, v. Plaintiff, THOMAS GALLO, an individual, and I- MINERALS USA, INC., an Idaho corporation, ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY Defendants. THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Plaintiff Unimin Corporation s ( Plaintiff ) Motion for Temporary Restraining Order ( TRO ) (the Motion for TRO ) 1 and Motion for Leave to Conduct Expedited Discovery (the Motion for Expedited Discovery ) in the abovecaptioned case. The Court, having considered the Motions, Verified Complaint, briefs in support of and in opposition to the Motions, affidavits and argument of counsel, FINDS and CONCLUDES, only for the narrow purposes of these Motions, as follows: 1. The submissions of the parties raise substantial issues in need of judicial determination regarding Plaintiff s claims. 2. Plaintiff is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Connecticut. Plaintiff mines and processes high purity quartz under the trade names Quintus, Quartzil, and Iota and sells its high purity quartz worldwide for use in the semiconductor manufacturing, quartz lighting, fiber optic cable, and other industries. 1 The Motion for TRO seeks relief from the Court in the form of a temporary restraining order. Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction contemporaneously with the Motion for TRO. At this time, the Court will only consider the Motion for TRO.

3. Defendant Dr. Thomas Gallo ( Gallo ) was employed by Plaintiff until February 2009. He began working for Plaintiff in 1997 as the Senior Research Engineer and ended his employment with Plaintiff in 2009 as the General Manager, Research and Development. 4. While in Plaintiff s employ, Defendant Gallo executed three agreements: (1) a Confidentiality and Employment-at-Will Agreement on December 4, 1996 (the 1996 Confidentiality Agreement ); a Confidentiality Agreement on January 2, 1997 (the 1997 Confidentiality Agreement ); and a Settlement, Confidentiality, and Non-Compete Agreement on March 5, 2009 (the 2009 Confidentiality Agreement ) (collectively, the Confidentiality Agreements ). 5. Each Confidentiality Agreement contained non-disclosure provisions restricting Defendant Gallo s ability to disclose Plaintiff s confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret information and materials. In addition, in the 2009 Confidentiality Agreement, Defendant Gallo fully and freely acknowledge[d] and agree[d] that [for purposes of his non-disclosure obligations], all of the specialized knowledge and information relating to High Purity Quartz in [his] possession and/or within his knowledge is confidential information belonging to [Plaintiff]. 6. On July 10, 2014, Defendant I-Minerals USA, Inc. ( I-Minerals ) issued a press release announcing its engagement of Defendant Gallo as a consultant to oversee ceramic test work and market development and declaring that [w]ith the addition of Thomas Gallo to our team we are better positioned to compete in the highly competitive quartz markets. 7. Plaintiff filed a Verified Complaint in Mitchell County, North Carolina Superior Court on July 28, 2014, contending that Defendant I-Minerals purposely hired Defendant Gallo to 2

compete with Plaintiff in the high purity quartz market and alleging that Defendants Gallo and I-Minerals have misappropriated, or, unless enjoined, will misappropriate, Plaintiff s confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret information and materials in violation of the North Carolina Trade Secrets Protection Act and the North Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act and in breach of the 1996 and 1997 Confidentiality Agreements. In addition to its statutory and contract claims, Plaintiff has asserted common law claims against one or both Defendants for conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of implied duties of good faith and fair dealing and tortious interference with contract. 8. Contemporaneously with the filing of its Verified Complaint, Plaintiff filed the Motion for TRO, by which it seeks (i) to restrain and enjoin Defendants from directly or indirectly, disclosing, using or relying upon [Plaintiff s] confidential, proprietary and/or trade secret information, (ii) to compel Defendants to return all documents, files and other materials containing and/or comprising [Plaintiff s] confidential, proprietary and/or trade secret information; and (iii) to restrain and enjoin [Defendant] Gallo from owning, managing, operating, financing, controlling, becoming employed by, or being associated with, any business venture or activity that is in direct competition with [Plaintiff] relating to high purity quartz. 9. Plaintiff also filed the Motion for Expedited Discovery in connection with its Motion for Preliminary Injunction. In the Motion for Expedited Discovery, Plaintiff seeks limited discovery in order to determine whether Defendant Gallo has or will necessarily disclose Plaintiff s confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret information and materials in the course of his employment at Defendant I-Minerals. Specifically, Plaintiff requests to 3

serve four interrogatories and six requests for production to Defendant Gallo, six interrogatories and five requests for production to Defendant I-Minerals, and to take the depositions of Defendants Gallo and I-Minerals within fourteen days from the entry of an order granting its Motion for Expedited Discovery. 10. The Court held a hearing on the Motions for TRO and for Expedited Discovery on August 12, 2014. Defendants were served prior to the hearing with the Summons, Verified Complaint, Plaintiff s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Plaintiff s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Plaintiff s Motion for Expedited Discovery and a Notice of Hearing. All parties were represented by counsel at the hearing. 11. Prior to the hearing, Defendant Gallo submitted an affidavit and Memoranda in opposition to the Motions for TRO and for Expedited Discovery. In his Memorandum in opposition to the Motion for TRO, Defendant Gallo indicates that he has been retained by I-Minerals to aid in the development of a float process for ore extracted from I- Minerals Helmer Bovill property (p. 2), which he states in his affidavit leads to a resulting product, a [high purity quartz], [which] is to be marketed toward low iron applications and solar applications. (Gallo Aff., para. 9). Defendant Gallo contends that [t]he float process results in a lower purity quartz than the higher purity quartz marketed by Unimin. (Memorandum, p. 2). 12. The purpose of a temporary restraining order ( TRO ) is to preserve the status quo between the parties until such time as a motion for preliminary injunction can be properly heard. See Lambe v. Smith, 11 N.C. App. 580, 582 (1971) (stating that a TRO is utilized to preserve the status quo until the motion for preliminary injunction can... be brought for hearing and decision. ); 4

13. It appears to the Court from the Verified Complaint, Plaintiff s Motion for TRO, brief and supporting affidavit, and the affidavit of Defendant Gallo, as well as from the other submissions of record, that a TRO is necessary for the protection of Plaintiff s rights, to prevent irreparable harm to Plaintiff from any unauthorized disclosure or use of Plaintiff s confidential, proprietary or trade secret information and materials relating to high purity quartz, and to maintain as nearly as possible the status quo until Plaintiff s Motion for Preliminary Injunction may be heard by the Court. The balance of the equities and the ends of justice support granting such relief, and a TRO in this case is not adverse to the public interest. 14. The Court therefore concludes that a TRO should issue and that, accordingly, the Motion for TRO should be granted, in part. 15. It also appears to the Court that, in light of its grant of the Motion for TRO, Plaintiff should be allowed to propound limited expedited discovery that is narrowly focused on the issues relevant to Plaintiff s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and in particular, to whether Defendant Gallo has or will necessarily disclose Plaintiff s confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret information and materials in the course of his employment at Defendant I-Minerals. 16. Therefore, the Court concludes that the Motion for Expedited Discovery should be granted. NOW THEREFORE, based upon the foregoing FINDINGS and CONCLUSIONS, it is ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is granted as provided herein. 5

2. During the Term of this Order, Defendant Gallo is restrained and enjoined from disclosing the following information regarding the various specifications of Plaintiff s processes employed in producing high purity quartz, including: a. the types of processes used; b. the sequence of these processes; c. the temperature applied in these processes; d. the composition and quantities of chemical agents applied in these processes; e. the specialized materials used in these processes; f. the design of the equipment used in these processes; g. the duration of these various processes; h. the speed of these various processes; and i. the feed rate of these various processes. 3. Within three days after the entry of this Order, Defendant Gallo shall return to Plaintiff any and all documents, files, and other materials containing and/or comprising any of the information in the immediately preceding paragraph 2 above (whether stored electronically or in hard copy) to the extent he has any such information in his possession or under his control, without retaining any copies thereof. 4. That portion of Plaintiff s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order seeking to enjoin and restrain Defendant Gallo from owning, managing, operating, financing, controlling, becoming employed by, or being associated with Defendant I-Minerals is denied. 6

5. That portion of Plaintiff s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order seeking to enjoin and restrain Defendant I-Minerals is denied. 6. Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 65(c), and as a condition of this Order, Plaintiff shall post security in the amount of $500.00 in the form of cash, check, surety bond or other undertaking satisfactory to the Mitchell County Clerk of Superior Court on or before August 15, 2014. 7. The terms and conditions of this Order shall be in force and effect immediately, and unless extended pursuant to the provisions of Rule 65, the TRO will expire on Monday, August 25, 2014. 8. Plaintiff s Motion for Expedited Discovery is granted as provided herein. 9. The parties shall abide by the following schedule for expedited discovery and briefing in connection with the Court s consideration of Plaintiff s Motion for Preliminary Injunction: a. The parties shall be permitted to serve written discovery on or before August 14, 2014. The written discovery shall be narrowly focused on the issues relevant to Plaintiff s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. b. The parties shall respond to all written discovery on or before August 18, 2014. c. The parties shall appear before this Court at 10:00 A.M. on Tuesday, August 19, 2014 in Courtroom 6370 of the Mecklenburg County Courthouse, 832 East Fourth Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 28202, to be heard on any objections to the written discovery requests or responses. 7

d. Plaintiff shall be permitted to take the 30(b)(6) deposition of Defendant I- Minerals and the deposition of Defendant Gallo. Defendants shall be permitted to take the 30(b)(6) deposition of Plaintiff. The depositions shall be narrowly focused on the issues relevant to Plaintiff s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and shall be completed on or before August 21, 2014. e. Defendants responsive briefs and any other submissions in opposition to Plaintiff s Motion for Preliminary Injunction as well as any supplementation Plaintiff may wish to make to Plaintiff s Motion for Preliminary Injunction shall be served on or before August 22, 2014. The parties shall serve any replies to these submissions on or before 12:00 P.M. on August 25, 2014. 10. The parties shall appear before this Court at 2:00 P.M. on Monday, August 25, 2014 in Courtroom 6370 of the Mecklenburg County Courthouse, 832 East Fourth Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 28202, to be heard on Plaintiff s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. 11. Except as expressly granted in this Order, the Motion for TRO and the Motion for Expedited Discovery are DENIED. SO ORDERED, this the 13th day of August, 2014. /s/ Louis A. Bledsoe, III Louis A. Bledsoe, III Special Superior Court Judge for Complex Business Cases 8