Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01965/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01965-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

WO 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Slater & Associates Insurance, Inc., 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

Stanley G. Roork and Janice Roork, 

husband and wife; and Stan Roork 

Insurance Services, LLC, 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

NO. CV 07-1965-PHX-JAT 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 

ORDER (WITH NOTICE) 

The Court has read and considered Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint, 

Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, and the 

supporting memorandum, affidavit, and exhibits, and has heard the arguments of 

counsel for Plaintiff and Mr. Roork pro se.1

 To obtain a temporary restraining order, the moving party must show: 1) a 

strong likelihood of success on the merits, 2) the possibility of irreparable injury to 

the moving party if injunctive relief is not granted, 3) the balance of hardships 

favors the moving party, and 4) advancement of the public interest. See Los 

 

1

 The Court does not deem Mr. Roork’s telephonic appearance to be a waiver of any arguments relating to venue or personal jurisdiction (or any other defenses). Further should Mr. Roork (or any other defendant) choose to file a motion on this basis, said defendant may simultaneously move to stay the deadlines in this Order assuming those deadlines have not already expired.

Case 2:07-cv-01965-JAT Document 15 Filed 10/16/07 Page 1 of 5
 2

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

Angeles Memorial Coliseum Comm’n v. National Football League, 634 F.2d 1197, 

1200 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. State Bd. Of Accountacy, 72 F.3d 1427, 1430 (9th

Cir. 1995). The moving party may meet this burden by showing either: 1) a 

combination of probable success on the merits and a possibility of irreparable 

injury, or 2) the existence of serious questions going to the merits and that the 

balance of hardships tips sharply in its favor. Goto.com, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 

202 F.3d 1199, 1204-05 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Sardi’s Rest. Corp. v. Sardi, 755 F.2d 

719, 723 (9th Cir. 1985). 

 The Court has determined that Plaintiff has shown probable success on the 

merits on its misappropriation claim and that unless a temporary restraining order 

against Defendants is granted, there is the possibility of irreparable injury, loss, or 

damage to Plaintiff from Defendant Stanley G. Roork’s misappropriation of 

Plaintiff’s confidential business information obtained by Defendant Stanley G. 

Roork during his employment with Plaintiff and retained thereafter. 

 The Court has further determined that Plaintiff has no other adequate remedy 

at law. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED (granting in part and denying in part the 

request for Temporary Restraining Order (part of doc. #2), the request for 

Temporary Restraining Order is granted as specifically identified below and denied 

in all other respects2

) THAT: 

1. Defendant Stanley G. Roork, his agents, employees, representatives, 

assigns, attorneys, and successors-in-interest, and all other persons acting on his 

behalf or in concert with him, are hereby enjoined and restrained from engaging in 

any of the following acts: 

Directly or indirectly, disclosing, sharing, transmitting, 

2

 To the extent Doc. #2 also contains the motion for preliminary injunction, that Motion remains pending. 

Case 2:07-cv-01965-JAT Document 15 Filed 10/16/07 Page 2 of 5
 3

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

destroying, or using any of the confidential and/or proprietary Slater documents, files, materials, data, information or other 

property that he had access to (or made copies of) while 

employed by Slater and retained thereafter, including but not 

limited to customer-related documents and information, such as 

contact information, insurance applications, current and prior 

insurance policies, expiration dates of policies, policy premiums, prior claims, and underwriting information. 

2. Defendant Roork and his agents shall return to Slater any and all 

documents and copies of documents (including electronic documents and 

information) that he obtained from Slater during his employment (other than his 

personal employee benefit documents and discharge documents) and all other items 

of company property, including all insured files; the three-ring binder with the 

customer list provided to him by Brett Slater; all customer renewal lists, all 

commission statements; all handwritten notes relating to Slater customers taken 

during the course of his employment; the company-purchased digital camera, laptop 

computer, desktop computer, printer/fax/scanner and any office supplies provided 

or purchased by Slater; and all other documents generated during the course of his 

employment related to former or current Slater customers. These items shall be 

returned to counsel for Plaintiff within 72 hours of Defendants being served with 

this Order. 

3. Each Defendant, within 72 hours of being served with this Order, shall 

file an affidavit avowing that all properties and materials have been returned, 

including copies. 

4. If each Defendant fails to file such affidavit within 72 hours of being 

served with this Order, then within 5 business days of being served with this Order, 

each Defendant shall provide Slater with any other computer(s), hard-drive(s), flash 

drive(s), or other storage device(s) within such Defendant’s possession, custody or 

control so that Slater can obtain a mirror image of all such devices for forensic 

examination to determine the extent of the information Roork wrongfully removed 

Case 2:07-cv-01965-JAT Document 15 Filed 10/16/07 Page 3 of 5
 4

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

from Slater’s property. And each Defendant and/or such Defendant’s counsel has a 

right to be present during the copying and forensic examination, but none of them 

shall interfere with the examination(s) in any way. Slater shall conduct the forensic 

examination in a manner reasonably calculated to protect the privacy of any 

Defendant’s personal information and data on the computer and storage devices, 

and shall not review personal documents or data that had been stored on the 

computer or storage device other than as necessary to verify that it is not the 

property of Slater. 

5. If the forensic examination reveals the existence of any confidential 

and/or proprietary information on a computer or other storage device, Defendant 

will produce the actual computer or memory device that contains such information 

to Slater, and Slater will retain those items without alteration pending further order 

of this Court. Slater will bear the cost of the forensic examination, if any. 

6. Any violation of this Temporary Restraining Order by Defendants, or 

their agents, employees, representatives, assigns, attorneys, successors-in-interest, 

or any other person acting on their behalf or in concert with them, shall constitute 

contempt of this Court, and shall render any and all violators subject to punishment 

accordingly. It shall be considered a violation of this Order for Defendants to 

impede, threaten, or retaliate against any person assisting Plaintiff in implementing 

this Order or in prosecuting this litigation. 

7. This Temporary Restraining Order shall be in full force and effect until 

this Court conducts a preliminary injunction hearing. It is ordered setting a hearing 

on Plaintiff’s Application for a Preliminary Injunction (part of Doc. #2) for October 

25, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. 

8. Plaintiff shall serve this Temporary Restraining Order, any other 

orders entered herein, and all supporting papers upon Defendants for this Order to 

Case 2:07-cv-01965-JAT Document 15 Filed 10/16/07 Page 4 of 5
 5

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

take effect. 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), the Temporary Restraining 

Order set forth herein shall be subject to the posting of security with the Clerk of the 

Court by Plaintiff, in the form of a surety bond in the amount of $15,000. This 

Order may not be served until this bond is posted. 

Dated this 16th day of October, 2007. 

Case 2:07-cv-01965-JAT Document 15 Filed 10/16/07 Page 5 of 5