Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-02483/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-02483-1/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BANK OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MARK J. IMMEL and SANDRA M.

PENNER,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 10-02483 CRB

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING

AND QUESTIONS RE

APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON JUNE 11, 2010 AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties

reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not

cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these

authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If

the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the

authorities only, with reference to pin cites and without argument or additional briefing. Cf.

N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to

explain their reliance on such authority. The Court suggests that associates or of counsel

attorneys who are working on this case be permitted to address some or all of the Court’s

questions contained herein.

Case 3:10-cv-02483-CRB Document 27 Filed 06/10/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

28

2

The Court tentatively GRANTS Plaintiff’s application for a temporary restraining

order. The parties shall each have 20 minutes to address the following questions:

1. What is the legal effect of the letter from Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith

Incorporated (“MLPF&S”) dated December 14, 2009 indicating that registered

representatives of MLPF&S “shall not be covered by the Protocol to the extent that they

are either: (i) employed in the U.S. Trust, Bank of America Private Wealth Management

business, or (ii) employed by Bank of America, N.A. or MLPF&S as “Wealth

Management Bankers.” (See Declaration of Thong Nguyen, Ex. A.) Did either

Defendant ever receive the letter or have access to it? On what authority can the Court

rely to determine whether a carve-out like the one by Merrill Lynch for U.S. Trust

employees may be recognized?

2. What is the precise relationship between Merrill Lynch and U.S. Trust and Bank of

America? Who employed Defendants? Which entity previously serviced the clients on

Defendants’ lists? Where, specifically, is this information in evidence in the record?

3. Do Defendants concede that, absent the protection of the Protocol, the collected client

information taken from their former employer constitutes protected trade secret

information? Regardless of the Protocol, does the taking of the collected client

information constitute a breach of any of the contracts Defendants signed or the duties

acquired by virtue of their previous employment?

4. Should the Court grant the application for a temporary restraining order and the request

for limited/expedited discovery, what do the parties propose for the timing and scope of

discovery and the schedule for the briefing and hearing on a motion for preliminary

injunction? What do Defendants suggest regarding the scope of the injunctive relief in

Plaintiff’s proposed order?

5. Should the Court grant the application for a temporary restraining order, what would be

the appropriate bond amount?

6. Do the parties have anything further they wish to address?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 10, 2010 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

GENERAL DUTY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-02483-CRB Document 27 Filed 06/10/10 Page 2 of 2