Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06418/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06418-7/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

NOTICE OF QUESTIONS FOR

HEARING

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON

JANUARY 11, 2008, AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points and authorities and, thus, does

not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to

rely on legal 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, without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D.

Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). To the extent parties submit additional authorities, they are required to

provide such citations with pin cites. The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument

to explain their reliance on such authority. Unless the Court orders otherwise at the hearing, the

Case 3:07-cv-06418-JSW Document 77 Filed 01/10/08 Page 1 of 4
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

Court will not review or consider any declarations or other evidence filed by the parties after

these questions are posted.

The parties each shall have twenty-five (25) minutes to address the following questions:

(1) How do Defendants respond to the declarations submitted by Plaintiffs in

support of the reply stating that after Stephen Hause started working for

Edgewood Partners Insurance Center (“EPIC”), he presented Sun Garden Gangi

with a quote prepared while Mr. Hause was still employed by Arthur J.

Gallagher & Co., Inc. (“Gallagher”)?

(a) Do Defendants contend that the quote did not contain confidential

information or was not a trade secret? If so, on what authority do

Defendants rely?

(b) Assuming arguendo that the quote contained confidential information or

trade secrets, on what authority do Defendants rely in support of their

argument that such evidence does not support the issuance of an

injunction?

(c) In light of the declarations of Kevin Gangi and Melanie Jones, does Mr.

Hause contend that he did not solicit the business of Sun Garden Gangi

while he was employed at EPIC? Why did he not submit a responsive

declaration?

(d) In light of the fact Plaintiffs submitted the declarations of Kevin Gangi

and Melanie Jones as evidence of improper solicitation only in

connection with the reply, is it proper for the Court to consider such

evidence?

(2) Defendants submit numerous declarations from former Gallagher employees,

who are now EPIC employees, stating that after such employees called EPIC,

EPIC set up interviews on very short notice, including after business hours on

Friday, December 7, 2007, over the weekend, and before business hours on

Monday, December 10, 2007. Moreover, the declarations state that EPIC

Case 3:07-cv-06418-JSW Document 77 Filed 01/10/08 Page 2 of 4
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

presented written job offers to such individuals on the same day or the day after

the interviews. 

(a) Why did EPIC schedule the interviews so quickly and conduct them on

non-business hours?

(b) Did EPIC receive information about such individuals from other former

Gallagher employees before conducting the interviews? If so, what

information did EPIC receive? If not, on what basis were the job offers

made so quickly?

(3) Plaintiffs submit evidence that indicates Neil Cohen solicited Bigge Construction

to transfer its business to EPIC. (Declaration of James G. McFarlane, ¶ 59.) Mr.

Cohen does not appear to address this contention in his declaration submitted in

opposition to Plaintiffs’ application for a temporary restraining order. Did Mr.

Neil solicit Bigge Construction after he left Gallagher?

(4) In his declaration, Robert Dutto states that he took his briefcase and Rolodex

with him when he left Gallagher and that he subsequently returned any Gallagher

materials in his possession. (Declaration of Robert Dutto, ¶ 8.) Did Mr. Dutto

access or use any Gallagher materials at EPIC before he returned them?

(5) In his declaration, Robert Ellsworth states that when he left Gallagher, he took

his laptop computer and Blackberry device.

(a) Did the laptop computer and Blackberry device belong to Gallagher or

were they Mr. Ellsworth’s personal property?

(b) If this equipment belonged to Gallagher, has Mr. Ellsworth returned such

property to Gallagher and did Mr. Ellsworth access or use this equipment

when he was working for EPIC?

(c) Even if this equipment belonged to Mr. Ellsworth, did such equipment

contain any Gallagher documents or other Gallagher material? If so, has

Mr. Ellsworth accessed or used such Gallagher documents or other

Gallagher material when he was working for EPIC? 

Case 3:07-cv-06418-JSW Document 77 Filed 01/10/08 Page 3 of 4
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

4

(6) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(2), the Court may advance the

trial of the action on the merits with a hearing of an application for a preliminary

injunction. If the Court were to follow this procedure, how much time would the

parties need to conduct discovery and prepare for this hearing/trial? 

(7) Are there any other issues the parties wish to address?

Dated: January 10, 2008 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-06418-JSW Document 77 Filed 01/10/08 Page 4 of 4