Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06418/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06418-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER, & CO., INC., et

al.

Plaintiffs,

 v.

EDGEWOOD PARTNERS INS. CENTER, et

al.

Defendants. /

No. C 07-06418 JSW

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE

ISSUANCE OF TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER AND

SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ ex parte motion for

a temporary restraining order, evidence preservation order, and expedited discovery order, and

order to show cause re issuance of a preliminary injunction. The allegations supporting the

motion are set forth in the Complaint and the memorandum in support of the request that the

Court issue a temporary restraining order, and shall not be repeated here. In brief, among other

alleged wrongs, Plaintiffs assert that certain individual defendants, who are former employees

of Plaintiffs, stole proprietary information from Plaintiffs’ computers and are now using that

information to compete with Plaintiffs.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) authorizes a court to issue a temporary restraining

order without written or oral notice to an adverse party or parties, when:

(1) it clearly appears from the specific facts shown by affidavit or the

verified complaint that immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage

will result to the applicant before the adverse party or that party’s attorney

can be heard in opposition, and (2) the applicant’s attorney certifies to the

court in writing the efforts, if any which have been made to give the notice

and the reasons supporting the claim that notice should not be required.

Case 3:07-cv-06418-JSW Document 10 Filed 12/20/07 Page 1 of 3
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

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b).

“[C]ourts have recognized very few circumstances justifying the existence of an ex parte

TRO. For example, an ex parte TRO may be appropriate ‘where notice to the adverse party is

impossible either because the identity of the adverse party is unknown or because a known party

cannot be located in time for a hearing.’” Reno Air Racing Association, Inc. v. McCord, 452

F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Am. Can Co. v. Mansukhani, 742 F.2d 314, 322 (7th

Cir. 1984).) That is not the situation here, where Plaintiffs clearly know the identity and the

location of the Defendants.

In such a case, “courts have recognized ‘a very narrow band of cases in which ex parte

orders are proper because notice to the defendant would render fruitless the further prosecution

of the action.’” Id. (quoting Am. Can Co., 742 F.2d at 322.) Plaintiffs assert that in this case,

the litigation could be rendered fruitless because the Defendants are likely to take action to hide

or destroy the evidence that would support Plaintiffs’ allegations. The Court concludes that

Plaintiffs have failed to make a sufficient showing that the Defendants have a pattern of

destroying or routinely destroy evidence of the actions underlying the Complaint or the files

that they allegedly misappropriated from the Plaintiffs. See, e.g., Adobe Systems, Inc. v. South

Sun Products, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 636, 640-41 (S.D. Cal. 1999) (concluding that allegations that

defendant “could easily remove evidence of copyright infringement by deleting Plaintiff’s

software from its PCs,” insufficient to justify ex parte relief and finding plaintiffs’ evidentiary

submission of propensity to destroy evidence insufficient).

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request for issuance of a temporary restraining order without

notice to the Defendants is DENIED. Plaintiffs are HEREBY ORDERED to serve a copy of

this Order, the Complaint, the ex parte Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and its

Supporting Papers on Defendants by no later than 12:00 p.m., Friday, December 21, 2007.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall file and serve any opposition to

Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order by 12:00 p.m December 28, 2007. 

Plaintiffs may file and serve a reply by no later than 12:00 p.m. on January 2, 2008.

Case 3:07-cv-06418-JSW Document 10 Filed 12/20/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

It is FURTHER ORDERED that hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary

restraining order shall be heard on Friday, January 4, 2008 at 9:00 a.m.

The Court has set this schedule in light of the fact that Plaintiffs move for a temporary

restraining order. The Court, however, is amenable to any stipulations or requests to modify

this briefing schedule and hearing date. Thus, if any of the parties wishes to modify the briefing

schedule or the hearing date, they may submit such a request to the Court demonstrating good

cause for such modification.

Although the Court is not ordering specific relief at this time, given the allegations set

forth in Plaintiffs’ Complaint and the evidentiary submissions in support of their motion,

regarding access to computers, electronic media and storage devices, the Court finds it

advisable to expressly remind all parties that now that litigation has commenced, the parties,

each of their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons acting in concert with them,

or on behalf of them, owe a duty to preserve what they know or reasonably should know will be

relevant evidence in the pending lawsuit, including any electronically stored information, even

though no discovery request or order to preserve the evidence has yet been made. If relevant

evidence is destroyed, a party may move for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 37(c)(2). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 20, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-06418-JSW Document 10 Filed 12/20/07 Page 3 of 3