Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02481/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02481-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

ROBERT HALF INTERNATIONAL, 

INC., a Delaware corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

ERIC SHANE AINSWORTH, an 

individual; LISA LYNN ALDAV A, 

an individual' SERENA MAl 

GREENWo5D-.'.~r individual; 

RUBEN D . HEKNANDEZ, an 

individual' DEANA H. SCHWEITZE~ an individual; 

CATHERINE . SHERMAN, an 

individual; and DOES 1 through 20, 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. 14-CV-2481-WQH (DHB) 

ORDER 

1911 HAYES, Judge: 

II The matters before the Court are: (1) the motion for leave to file amended 

21 II counterclaims (ECF Nos. 33,37) filed by Defendants; (2) the motion to file documents 

22 II under seal (ECF No. 31) filed by Defendants; (3) the motion to file documents under 

23 II seal (ECF No. 41) filed by Plaintiff; and (4) the motion for leave to file first amended 

24 complaint and to amend scheduling order (ECF No. 43) filed by Plaintiff. 

I. Background 

2611 On September 23, 2014, Plaintiff Robert Half International Inc. ("RBI") 

2711 commenced this action by filing a Complaint in San Diego County Superior Court. 

28 II (ECF No. 1-1). The Complaint alleges that Defendants, Plaintiffs fonner employees, 

- 1 - 14-CV-2481 -WQH (DHB) 

2015 JUL15 Pti 3: 53 

': 

. ~u~ 

",'(­

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

c.'. i II " 

r;r I VV() 

Case 3:14-cv-02481-WQH-DHB Document 61 Filed 07/15/15 Page 1 of 8
1 II breached their respective employment agreements and engaged in unfair competition 

2 II after terminating employment with Plaintiff and going to work competitors. The 

3 /I Complaint alleges that Defendants violated Paragraph Thirteen of their respective 

411 employment agreements by "touting [their] RBI experience and background for [their] 

511 new employer[s'] benefit."J No. 1-1 at 16,21,25,27). The Complaint 

6 II claims breach ofcontract, breach offiduciary duty, breach ofthe implied covenant 

7 good and fair dealing, tortious with DrOSDectlVe economiC 

8 advantage, violation Lanham Act, violation ofCalifornia Business & Professions 

9 II Code section 17200, and common law unfair competition. 

10 On October 17, 2014, Defendants Ainsworth, Lisa Aldava, Serena 

11 II Greenwood, Ruben Hernandez, Jr., Deana Schweitzer, and Catherine Sherman removed 

1211 the action to this Court on the basis offederal question jurisdiction. (ECF No.1). On 

13 II October 23,2014, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint. No.6). 

14 II On December 17, 2014, the Court issued an Order, granting in part and denying in part 

15 II the motion to dismiss. (ECF No.1 0). The Court dismissed Plaintiff's second, eighth, 

16 II ninth, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth claims 

17 1\ of contract and breaches of the implied covenant good faith and fair 

18 II dealing "only to the extent these claims seek to Paragraph Thirteen of the 

19 II employment agreements." ld. at 23. Court found that Complaint to 

20 II allege sufficient facts 'plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief' 

21 II breach ofParagraph 13, Le., facts showing that Paragraph 13 is enforceable." ld. 

22\\ at 10 (citation omitted). The Court dismissed Plaintiff's sixth and tenth claims for 

23 

24 I Paragraph Thirteen of employment provides: 

25 

26 

27 

28 

After termination ofEmployee's employment with Employer, Employee shall not indicate on any' statlonary, business card, advertising, solicitatlOn 

or other business materials that Employee is or was formerly an employee ofEmployer, any of its divisions, or any ofthe RBI Companies except in 

the bona tide submission ofresumes and the filling out of applications in 

the course of seeking employment. 

(ECF No. 1-1 39). 

- 2- 14-CV-2481-WQH (DHB) 

Case 3:14-cv-02481-WQH-DHB Document 61 Filed 07/15/15 Page 2 of 8
III tortious interference with prospective economic advantage as displaced by the 

2 California Uniform Secrets 

3 On December 30, 2014, Defendants filed an Answer No. 12) and 

4 Counterclaims for Breach Contract and Unfair Competition No. 13). On 

5 January 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims for Breach 

6 Contract and Unfair Competition or, in Alternative, for a More Definite Statement. 

7 No. 19). On March 16,2015, the Court issued an Order granting the motion to 

8 II dismiss. (ECF No. 28). The Court found that Defendants had faBed to allege sufficient 

9 facts to state plausible breach of contract and unfair competition claims. The Court 

10 granted Defendants thirty days to file a motion for leave to file amended counterclaims. 

11 On February 11, 201 States Magistrate David Bartick issued a 

12 Scheduling Order, giving the parties until May 13, 15, to file "[a]ny motion to join 

13 other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional pleadings .... " No. 

14 at 1). 

15 On April 15 and 16,2015, Defendants filed motion forleave file amended 

16 counterclaims, accompanied by the motion to file documents under seal. (ECF Nos. 

17 33,34,37). On May 1 2015, Plaintiff filed an opposition. (ECF No. 41). On May 

18 13,201 Plaintiff filed the motion to file documents under seal. (ECF No. 41). On 

19 May 19,2015, Defendants filed a reply. (ECF No. 45). 

20 On May 13, 2015, Plaintiff filed the motion for leave to file a first amended 

2111 complaint and to amend scheduling order. (ECFNo. ). On June 1,201 Defendants 

22 filed a response. (ECF No. 50). On June 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF No. 53). 

23 H. Discussion 

24 A. Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Amended Counterclaims 

(ECF Nos. 33, 37) 

Defendants request leave to file amended counterclaims. Defendants that 

27 II Plaintiff aQIees that amendment is appropriate, based on contentions in its 

28 II motion to Defendants' counterclaims. Defendants contend that their proposed 

- 3 - 14-CV-2481-WQH (DHB) 

Case 3:14-cv-02481-WQH-DHB Document 61 Filed 07/15/15 Page 3 of 8
14 

IS 

16 

1 amended counterclaims include more factual allegations. Plaintiff contends that 

2 would be because Defendants have failed to establish standing 

3 pursuant to California Business and Professions Code section 17200. 

411 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure IS mandates that to amend "be 

S II given when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. IS(a). "This policy be applied 

6 II with extreme liberality." Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 1048, 10S1 

7 (9th 2003) (quotation omitted). determining whether to allow an amendment, 

8 a considers whether there "undue delay," "bad faith," "undue prejudice to the 

9 1/ opposing party," or "futility of amendment." F oman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178. 182 

10 II (1962). "Not ofthe [Foman] merit equal weight.. .. [1]t is the consideration 

11 II ofprejudice the opposing party that carries the weight." Eminence Capital, 

12 II 316 F.3d 1OS2 (citation omitted). "The party opposing amendment the burden 

13 showing prejudice." DCDPrograms, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183,187 (9th 

1987). "Absent prejudice, or a strong showing ofany ofthe remaining Foman factors, 

exists a presumption under Rule 1 in favor granting to amend." 

Capital, 316 d 10S2. 

17 II After review of the motion for leave to file amended counterclaims and all 

18 II related the Court concludes that Plaintiff has made a sufficiently strong 

19 II showing ofthe Foman factors to overcome the presumption under Rule IS(a) in favor 

20 II ofgranting to amend. Eminence Capital, 316 d at 10S2. motion 

21 II leave to amended counterclaims is granted. 

B. Defendants' Motion to File Documents Under Seal (ECF No. 31) 

23 II Defendants attach a proposed amended counterclaims to their motion to file 

24 II amended counterclaims. Defendants lodged conditionally under seal Exhibits A and 

Defendant 

to the proposed amended counterclaims. (ECF No. 3S). Exhibits A Bare 

Aldava and Sherman's Compensation with Plaintiff. 

Defendants contend that is cause to file these exhibits under seal because 

are designated as "confidential" pursuant to the parties' stipulated protective order 

-4 14-CV-2481-WQH (OHB) 

Case 3:14-cv-02481-WQH-DHB Document 61 Filed 07/15/15 Page 4 of 8
1 II signed by Magistrate Judge David Bartick. 

211 "Historically, courts have a right to inspect and copy public 

3 II records and documents, includingjudicial records and documents. '" Kamakana v. City 

4 and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 11 1178 (9th 2006) (quoting Nixon v. 

5 Warner Commc 'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & (1978». In the Ninth Circuit, there 

6 is strong presumption in favor ofaccess to court records." v. State Farm Mut. 

7 Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 11 1135 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d 

8 1178-79. 

9 "[T]he presumption of access to judicial applies fully to 

1 0 dispositive pleadings, including motions for summary judgment and related 

11 attachments .... [T]he resolution ofa dispute on the merits, whether by trial or summary 

12 judgment, at the heart of the interest in ensuring the 'public's understanding of the 

13 judicial process and of significant public events. '" Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 

14 (quoting Valley Broadcasting Co. v. u.s. Dist. Ct. for Dist. ofNev. , 798 F.2d 1289, 

15 1294 (9th Cir. 1986». "Thus, 'compelling reasons' must be shown to seal judicial 

16 II records attached to a motion." Id. 

17 II An exception presumption access applies to sealed discovery 

18 II documents attached to non-dispositive motions. Id. "Specifically, the public 

19 II ofa need for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because 

20 II those documents are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to underlying 

2111 cause of action." Id. (citations and internal quotations omitted). "A 'good cause' 

22 II showing under Rule 26( c) will suffice to keep sealed records attached to non23 II dispositive motions." Id. at 1180. The existence of a protective order sealing 

documents is sufficient to demonstrate "good cause." Id. at 1179-80. 

25 /I Exhibits A and B are subject the s protective order. Defendants 

2611 therefore shown good cause to file under seal and to the proposed 

27 

28 

- 5 - 14-CV-2481-WQH (DHB) 

Case 3:14-cv-02481-WQH-DHB Document 61 Filed 07/15/15 Page 5 of 8
5 

10 

15 

20 

25

1 II amended counterclaims. Defendants' motion to file documents under seal is granted.2 

2 II C. Plaintiff's Motion to File Documents Under Seal (ECF No. 41) 

3 II Plaintifflodged two exhibits conditionally under seal in opposition to the motion 

411 for leave to file amended counterclaims. (ECF No. 42). These exhibits consist of 

23 II if they seek to file exhibits to their First Amended Counterclaims under seal. If they 

portions ofDefendants Sherman and Greenwoods depositions. Plaintiff contends that 

6 there is good cause to seal these exhibits because they are designated as "confidential" 

7 pursuant to the parties' stipulated protective order signed by Magistrate Judge David 

8 Bartick. 

9 These exhibits are subject to the Court's protective order. Plaintiffhas therefore 

shown good cause to file these exhibits under seal. Plaintiffs motion to file documents 

11 under seal is granted. 

12 D. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint 

13 and Amend Scheduling Order (ECF No. 43) 

14 a. Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint 

I Plaintiff requests leave to amend in order to add a claim for misappropriation of 

16 trade secrets against Defendants Aldava, Greenwood, Sherman, and Hernandez. 

17 Plaintiff asserts that, "[ s ]ince filing its original complaint, RHI has discovered that after 

18 they left RHI, Defendants Aldava, Greenwood, Sherman, and Hernandez each 

19 possessed RBI documents containing RHI's confidential business information and 

I trade secrets." (ECF No. 43-3 at 5). Plaintiff asserts that it learned information related 

21 to Defendants' misappropriation of trade secrets during the course of discovery. 

22 

2 However, Defendants must file a second motion to file documents under seal 

choose to do so, Defendants will be required to meet the cO!llj)ellinK reasons standard. 

2411 	See, e.g., Baldwin v. Us., 732 F. Supp. 2d 1142, 1145 (D. N: Mar.-I. 2010) (applying compellmg reasons standard to complaint exhibIts filed under seal because the claims 

themselves arose from the exhibits in question); Delphix Corp. v. Actifio, Inc., No. 13­ 1 cv-04614 2014 WL 4145520 at 

*1 n.2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20,2014) (to same effect)· 

26' 

1 

Billman Fray., LLC v. Bank;1Am. N.A., No.2: 15-cv-00088, 2015 WL 575926, at *1 

(D. Nev. FeD. 11, 2015) ("Altbough the Ninth Circuit has not ruled on the issue, other 

27 II courts in this circuit have held that a party seeking to seal documents attached to the 

complaint must show compelling reasons, and the court finds those cases persuasi ve.") 

28 II ( colfecting cases). 

- 6 -	 14-CY-2481-WQH (DHB) 

Case 3:14-cv-02481-WQH-DHB Document 61 Filed 07/15/15 Page 6 of 8
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 II Plaintiffcontends that Farnan factors all weigh in favor ofgranting leave to amend. 

211 "Defendants do not oppose RBI's request to file an amended complaint to add causes 

3 II of action for trade secret misappropriation." (ECF No. 50 at 2). 

4 s unopposed motion for leave file a first amended complaint is 

granted. 

6 b. Motion to Amend Scbeduling Order 

711 Plaintiff requests that the Scheduling Order be amended as follows: (1) extend 

8 II the deadline to amend pleadings "within two weeks after [Roth Staffing Companies, 

911 L.r. ('Roth')] fully complies with the subpoena issued by ; (2) extend Plaintiffs 

II expert disclosure deadline from May 1 201 to fifteen days from the date this Order 

11 II is filed; (3) extend Defendants' expert disclosure deadline from May 201 to thirty 

1211 days from the date this Order filed; and (4) to extend the deadline supplement 

13 expert disclosures to forty-four days from the date this Order is filed. Plaintiff 

14 that it may required another amended complaint, depending on Roth's (a nonII party) responses to subpoena requests. (ECF No. 43 at 7-8). 

16 1 ne Court the motion to amend scheduling order to United 

17 Magistrate Judge David H. Bartick, the magistrate judge assigned to this case who 

18 issued the Scheduling Order pursuant to Local Civil Rule 16.2. 

19 III 

21 

23 

24 

26 

28 

-7 14-CV-2481-WQH (DBB) 

Case 3:14-cv-02481-WQH-DHB Document 61 Filed 07/15/15 Page 7 of 8
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 V. Conclusion 

2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for leave to file amended 

3 counterclaims (ECF Nos. 33, 37) is GRANTED. Defendants shall file the First 

4 Amended Counterclaims within ten (10) days from the date of this Order. 

II IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motions to file documents under seal (ECF 

6 Nos. 31, 41) are GRANTED. 

7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for leave to file a first amended 

8 complaint (ECF No. 43) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file the First Amended 

9 Complaint within ten (10) days from the date of this Order. The motion to amend 

scheduling order (ECF No. 43) is REFERRED to United States Magistrate Judge David 

11 II H. Bartick. 

12 

13 

,2015 1411 DATED: fir!I 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

- 8 - 14-CY-2481-WQH (DHB) 

Case 3:14-cv-02481-WQH-DHB Document 61 Filed 07/15/15 Page 8 of 8