Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-01648/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-01648-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 18:1836(a) - Injunction against Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

---

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

THE TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL 

COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,

Plaintiff,

v.

DANIEL NOEL SU,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-01648-PJH 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER 

TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD 

NOT ISSUE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 10

Pursuant to stipulation and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and Northern 

District of California Local Rules 7-1, 7-2, 7-10, and 65-1, plaintiff The Terminix 

International Company Limited Partnership’s (“Terminix” or “plaintiff”) motion for 

temporary restraining order and order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should 

not issue against defendant Daniel Noel Su (“Su” or “defendant”) came before this court 

for consideration on April 10, 2019. Upon consideration of the application, and for good 

cause shown:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff has demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits 

of its claims against defendant for violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 and 

California Uniform Trade Secrets Act based on his alleged acquisition of plaintiff’s trade 

secrets in violation of plaintiff’s policies. The court finds that plaintiff has demonstrated

that, without an order from the court, it will suffer irreparable harm and that the balance of 

hardships strongly favors plaintiff. Accordingly, the court finds that a temporary 

restraining order and order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue 

Case 4:19-cv-01648-PJH Document 17 Filed 04/10/19 Page 1 of 3
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

are in the public interest:

2. The court HEREBY TEMPORARILY RESTRAINS, ENJOINS, AND 

ORDERS defendant as follows:

(a) Defendant Su shall be enjoined from possessing, using, or disclosing any 

of the materials taken from plaintiff Terminix’s system, and any other of plaintiff 

Terminix’s property that came into his possession via external hard drive download, email attachment, or other medium;

(b) Plaintiff Terminix shall be entitled to immediately conduct all discovery to 

ascertain the nature and extent of defendant Su’s misappropriation;

(c) Defendant Su shall return to plaintiff Terminix any and all of plaintiff 

Terminix’s property and trade secrets, including anything obtained by defendant Su from 

Terminix at any time and is ordered to do and provide an accounting of same by no later 

than 30 days from the date of this order;

(d) Upon the return of all property and accounting as ordered hereinabove, 

defendant Su is required to provide a written acknowledgment confirming that he has 

returned all of plaintiff Terminix’s property and trade secrets, including all of the data and 

confidential information on plaintiff Terminix’s clients;

(e) The court orders an inspection of defendant Su’s personal and work email, 

servers, hard drives, computer(s), mobile devices, PDAs, USB drives, solid state flash 

drives, flash drives, cloud storage locations, and other electronic equipment or databases 

maintained by defendant Su, by a neutral forensic expert mutually agreed upon by the 

parties and at defendant Su’s sole expense to ascertain whether any of plaintiff 

Terminix’s trade secrets, including its customer data, exists on such devices;

(f) Defendant Su is prohibited from destroying, altering, transmitting, or moving 

any documents, in whatever form, that may contain or reflect any of plaintiff Terminix’s 

trade secrets; and

(g) The court orders defendant Su to show cause why a preliminary injunction 

should not issue concerning the above, a hearing upon which shall be conducted on July 

Case 4:19-cv-01648-PJH Document 17 Filed 04/10/19 Page 2 of 3
3

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

31, 2019, at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Federal Building, 1301 Clay Street, 

Oakland, California. Plaintiff’s motion and supporting papers shall be filed no later than 

June 26, 2019. The date by which defendant shall file papers in response shall be July 

10, 2019. Plaintiff’s reply, if any, shall be filed no later than July 17, 2019.

3. No security bond is required in this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2019

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:19-cv-01648-PJH Document 17 Filed 04/10/19 Page 3 of 3