Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02403/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02403-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Account Receivable

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ATS PRODUCTS, INC,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHAMPION FIBERGLASS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-02403-SI 

ORDER DIRECTING FURTHER 

BRIEFING REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER AND 

RESETTING HEARING TO

SEPTEMBER 24, 2015 AT 10:00 AM

Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order is scheduled for a hearing on September 

18, 2015. The Court has reviewed all of the briefing and materials submitted by the parties 

regarding the motion. Defendants contend, inter alia, that there are significant differences 

between the CR1 and the ATS resin systems, including a different order of mixing the ingredients, 

different ratios for the initial mixture of formaldehyde and phenol, a different process for heating 

the ingredients, and a different methodology once the resorcinol has been added to the resole. 

Defendants have submitted the expert declaration of Theodore Dailey Jr. in support of their 

opposition. In his declaration, Mr. Dailey states his opinions about the specific differences 

between the CR1 and the ATS resin systems, as well as why those differences are significant. 

Dailey Decl. ¶¶ 12-13. Mr. Dailey also states his opinions regarding why the similarities between 

the CR1 and ATS resin systems (with regard to overall weight percentages of the four main 

ingredients) do not mean that there was a misappropriation of ATS trade secrets. Id. ¶ 14. 

Plaintiff's reply asserts, inter alia, that the differences identified by defendants are 

immaterial because defendants have not satisfied their burden of proving independent 

development of the CR1 resin system. However, plaintiff's reply does not specifically address

defendants' arguments about the particular differences identified by Mr. Dailey, nor does plaintiff 

Case 3:13-cv-02403-SI Document 162 Filed 09/16/15 Page 1 of 2
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

respond to Mr. Dailey's opinions regarding why the similarities between the two resin systems do 

not indicate misappropriation. The declaration filed by plaintiff's expert, Ravi Joshi, was filed in 

connection with the motion and thus does not respond to any of the points made by Mr. Dailey.

The Court finds that supplementation of the record will assist the Court's analysis of the 

issues presented by plaintiff's motion. Specifically, the Court directs plaintiff to file no later than 

noon on September 23, 2015, an additional declaration from its expert, Mr. Joshi, responding to 

the opinions set forth in Mr. Dailey's declaration at paragraphs 12-14.

1

The Court resets the 

hearing from September 18, 2015 to September 24, 2015 at 10:00 am. Counsel should be 

prepared to address at the hearing the significance of the similarities and differences between the 

CR1 and ATS resin systems with regard to the particular trade secrets at issue.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 16, 2015 ______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

 

1

 If Mr. Joshi wishes to respond to any other points made in Mr. Dailey's declaration, he 

may do so. 

Case 3:13-cv-02403-SI Document 162 Filed 09/16/15 Page 2 of 2