Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00673/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00673-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SARA HEALY,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv673-IEG(JMA)

Temporary Restraining Order; Order

Granting Ex Parte Application to

Shorten Time for Hearing on Motion to

Amend Answer; Setting Hearing on 

Motion for Preliminary Injunction

vs.

DJO, LLC, a limited liability corporation,

Defendant.

Plaintiff, Sara Healy, has filed this action alleging Defendant DJO, LLC (“DJO”), engaged

in employment discrimination in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act and other

federal and state statutes. Presently before the Court are the following matters filed by Defendant

DJO, LLC: an application for a temporary restraining order, a motion for leave to amend the

answer to assert a counterclaim, and an ex parte application to shorten time for hearing on the

motion to amend. For the reasons explained herein, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motions.

Legal Standard

The analysis on a motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) is substantially

identical to that on a motion for a preliminary injunction. See Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D.

Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (2001). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must

establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the

absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is

- 1 - 11cv673

Case 3:11-cv-00673-IEG-JMA Document 22 Filed 11/16/11 Page 1 of 4
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 public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). As long as all

four Winter factors are addressed, an injunction may issue where there are “‘serious questions

going to the merits’” and “a balance of hardships that tips sharply towards the plaintiff.” Alliance

for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011).

Discussion

In its proposed amended answer and counterclaim, Defendant DJO alleges that Plaintiff 

has breached certain confidentiality agreements which she signed during her employment with

DJO. Specifically, DJO alleges (1) Plaintiff, by and through her attorney Patrick O’Keeffe,

threatened to reveal DJO’s confidential information to Plaintiffs in approximately 147 pending

products liability actions against DJO, and testify in those cases to the detriment of DJO, if DJO

did not enter into a settlement of this present case; and (2) Plaintiff and/or her attorney Patrick

O’Keeffe in fact contacted attorney John Gomez, who is co-counsel for the Plaintiffs in one

pending state court action against DJO, In re: Cold Therapy Cases, offering to disclose DJO’s

confidential information. Defendant DJO proposes filing a counterclaim against Plaintiff alleging

causes of action for attempted extortion, breach of contract, and breach of the covenant of good

faith and fair dealing.

In the motion for a temporary restraining order, Defendant DJO asserts that as a result of

Plaintiff and/or Mr. O’Keeffe’s contact with Mr. Gomez, Plaintiffs in the In re: Cold Therapy

Cases action are now seeking leave to depose Plaintiff Healy. Defendant DJO’s counsel in the

state court action has been asked to submit a brief to the discovery referee, who will hold a hearing

on the matter on December 9, 2011. 

Although Defendant DJO has not yet been granted leave to file the amended answer and

counterclaim, the declarations attached to the motion for TRO raise the specter that Defendant

DJO may succeed on the merits on at least some of the claims asserted in its proposed

counterclaim. Furthermore, given the state of the discovery proceedings in state court, Defendant

DJO is likely to suffer irreparable injury if Plaintiff and/or her attorney Mr. O’Keeffe are not

enjoined from transmitting DJO’s confidential information to others who have actions pending

against DJO. Thus, Defendant DJO has raised serious questions going to the merits of Defendant

- 2 - 11cv673

Case 3:11-cv-00673-IEG-JMA Document 22 Filed 11/16/11 Page 2 of 4
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

DJO’s claims against Plaintiff for attempted extortion and breach of contract. 

Even more importantly, the declarations raise serious concerns regarding the conduct of

Plaintiff’s counsel in encouraging Plaintiff to disclose information which may be subject to the

attorney-client privilege. As an attorney admitted to practice before this Court, Mr. O’Keeffe is

required to comply with the standards of professional conduct required of the State Bar of

California as well as the Code of Professional Responsibility of the American Bar Association. 

S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 83.3(b). Attorneys are bound by Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6435 to “maintain

at every peril” the attorney-client privilege. Furthermore, attorneys are bound to “not advise the

violation of any law, rule, or ruling of a tribunal unless the member believes in good faith that such

law, rule, or ruling is invalid.” Cal. Prof. Rule 3-210. This Court has the inherent power to

manage its proceedings, to control the conduct of those who appear before it, and to examine

charges of unethical conduct. Erickson v. Newmar Corp., 87 F.3d 298, 303 (9th Cir. 1996). Both

the balance of equities and the public interest favor protection of attorney-client privileged

information.

Based thereon, the Court GRANTS Defendant DJO’s motion for a temporary restraining

order, until such time as the parties have an opportunity to fully brief the matter.

Conclusion

Because Defendant DJO has demonstrated that there are “serious questions” going to the

merits of its proposed counterclaim, and the balance of hardships tips sharply in its favor, and

because Defendant DJO is likely to be irreparably harmed if a TRO is not issued, the Court

GRANTS its Ex Parte Application for a Temporary Restraining Order. Plaintiff Healy and her

agents, including her attorney Mr. Patrick O’Keeffe, are enjoined and restrained from disclosing,

or using in any way, confidential information or attorney-client privileged information of DJO,

including any information gained by Plaintiff Healy in her position as paralegal for Defendant

DJO.

The Court GRANTS Defendant DJO’s motion for an order shortening time for hearing on

its motion for leave to file an amended answer and counterclaim. Such motion shall be heard,

along with Defendant DJO’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief, on Thursday, December 1,

- 3 - 11cv673

Case 3:11-cv-00673-IEG-JMA Document 22 Filed 11/16/11 Page 3 of 4
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

2011, at 1:30 p.m. Defendant DJO shall file and serve a motion for preliminary injunction by

noon on Thursday, November 17, 2011. Plaintiff’s opposition to both the motion to amend and the

motion for preliminary injunction shall be filed by Monday, November 28, 2011. Defendant

DJO’s reply, if any, shall be filed by noon on Wednesday, November 30, 2011.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 16, 2011

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

- 4 - 11cv673

Case 3:11-cv-00673-IEG-JMA Document 22 Filed 11/16/11 Page 4 of 4