Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00879/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00879-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 18:1836(a) Injunction against Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

---

1

17-cv-0879-AJB-MDD

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

27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARFIELD BEACH CVS LLC,

Plaintiff, 

v.

MOLLISON PHARMACY and 

SAMERA YOKOUB,

Defendants. 

Case No.: 17-cv-0879-AJB-MDD

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTION TO EXPEDITE 

DISCOVERY AND FOR A 

PRESERVATION ORDER

[ECF NO. 3]

In April 2017, CVS purchased El Cajon Express Pharmacy. (ECF No. 1 

¶ 3). Defendant Yokoub was a delivery driver for Express. (Id. ¶ 15). This 

case stems from allegations by CVS that Yokoub misappropriated customer 

lists, derived from her delivery logs, that Defendant Mollison Pharmacy has 

used to lure customers from CVS.1 (Id. ¶¶ 37, 38, 40).

On March 2, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant motion seeking a 

temporary restraining order, a preservation order, and an order authorizing 

 

1 Plaintiff, in its Complaint, also sued Palm Care Pharmacy but voluntarily dismissed 

Palm Care Pharmacy on May 10, 2017. (ECF No. 14).

Case 3:17-cv-00879-AJB-MDD Document 21 Filed 05/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

17-cv-0879-AJB-MDD

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

27

expedited discovery. (ECF No. 3). The motions for a preservation order and 

for expedited discovery were referred to this Court by the district judge. 

Defendants responded in opposition on May 15, 2017. (ECF No. 17). Plaintiff 

replied on May 17, 2017. (ECF No. 18).

As provided herein, Plaintiff’s motion for a preservation order is 

GRANTED. Plaintiff’s motion for expedited discovery is DENIED.

DISCUSSION

A. Motion for Preservation Order

In considering a motion for an order preserving evidence, the court is to 

consider:

1) The level of concern the court has for the continuing existence and 

maintenance of the integrity of the evidence in question in the 

absence of an order directing preservation of the evidence;

2) Any irreparable harm likely to result to the party seeking the 

preservation of the evidence absent an order directing preservation; 

and 

3) The capability of an individual, entity, or party to maintain the 

evidence sought to be preserved.

Jardin v. Datallegro, Inc., et al, No. 08-cv-1462, 2008 WL 4104473 *1 

(September 3, 2008, S.D. Cal.) (citations omitted). 

Although asserting that the facts in support of the motion presented by

Plaintiff are not accurate, Defendants state that they “do not generally 

object” to the Court issuing a preservation order. (ECF No. 17 at 2). 

Although it is not quite clear what the lack of general objection means, the 

Court takes it that Defendants do not oppose. It is not for the Court to 

second guess that decision. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a preservation 

order is GRANTED as requested by Plaintiff. (See ECF No. 3-1 at 18-192). 

 

2 The Court will refer to ECF-generated pagination instead of original pagination herein.

Case 3:17-cv-00879-AJB-MDD Document 21 Filed 05/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

17-cv-0879-AJB-MDD

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

27

B. Motion for Expedited Discovery

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d) states:

A party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties 

have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except in a proceeding 

exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or when 

authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court order.

In the instant case, Plaintiff may only obtain early discovery by court 

order. In this Circuit, courts must find “good cause” to determine whether to 

permit discovery prior to the Rule 26(f) conference. Good cause exists where 

the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of 

justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party. See, e.g., Arista 

Records, LLC v. Does 1–43, 2007 WL 4538697 *1 (S.D. Cal. 2007).

Plaintiff asserts that expedited discovery is necessary to determine the 

extent to which Defendants have disclosed CVS’ trade secrets and 

confidential information. (ECF No. 3-1 at 19). In support, Plaintiff claims 

that a number of customers have moved their business from Express to 

Mollison following the purchase and claims that this is likely a consequence 

of Defendant Yokoub taking the delivery log and Defendant Mollison 

Pharmacy using it to contact and divert customers. Defendants, on the other 

hand, assert that the delivery log, which was returned on April 13, 2017, to 

Plaintiff, does not contain the customers printed name, address or telephone 

number and was not used or copied by Defendants. Declaration of Samera 

Yokoub ¶¶ 9, 10 (ECF No. 15-9). 

The Court finds that good cause is lacking for expedited discovery. The 

Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the need for 

expedited discovery outweighs the prejudice to Defendants in having to 

respond to discovery at this stage of the case. The motion for expedited 

Case 3:17-cv-00879-AJB-MDD Document 21 Filed 05/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

17-cv-0879-AJB-MDD

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

27

discovery is DENIED.

The Court declines to enter a protective order as suggested by Plaintiff 

at this time. The Court encourages the parties, at the appropriate time, to 

meet and confer for the purpose of presenting a stipulated protective order. 

In the event of a dispute over the terms, the Court will entertain a joint 

motion to resolve any issues. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preservation Order is 

GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Motion for Expedited Discovery is DENIED.

Defendants are ORDERED to:

(1) Preserve all copies of CVS’ confidential and proprietary business

information, including but not limited to, Delivery Logs, list, or records and 

all copies;

(2) Preserve any communication(s) related to the use of CVS’ 

confidential and proprietary business information; and

(3) Preserve any communications related to Mollison and/or Palm

communicating with Yokoub about hiring her or paying her for any of CVS’

confidential, trade secret or proprietary information, including the Delivery 

Logs.

IT IS SO ORDERED:

Dated: May 24, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00879-AJB-MDD Document 21 Filed 05/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4