Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00592/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00592-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:44 Trademark Infringement

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TGI FRIDAY‟S INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

STRIPES RESTAURANTS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00592-AWI-SAB

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS‟ EX 

PARTE APPLICATION

ECF NO. 21

On May 12, 2015, Defendants Stripes Restaurants, Inc., John Pardini, and Robert Pardini 

(“Defendants”) filed an Ex Parte Application for Order (1) Continuing Hearing on Plaintiff TGI 

Friday‟s Inc.‟s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and (2) Permitting Limited Expedited 

Discovery Before Rule 26(f) Conference. (ECF No. 21.) This matter was referred to the 

undersigned magistrate judge for ruling on May 12, 2015. (ECF No. 22.)

The Court finds it appropriate for the matter to be submitted upon the record and brief on 

file without need for oral argument. See Local Rule 230(g). The Court has reviewed 

Defendants‟ submissions which included the Plaintiffs‟ position with regard to the pending

dispute, and therefore, does not require a hearing or written response from Plaintiffs in order to 

decide the matter. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants‟ ex parte application is denied.

Case 1:15-cv-00592-AWI-SAB Document 24 Filed 05/13/15 Page 1 of 5
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

I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff TGI Friday‟s Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed the complaint in this action on April 15, 

2015. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff brings claims against Defendants for trademark violations, 

violation of California‟s Unfair Competition laws, and for breaches of franchise agreements.

Plaintiff alleges that it is the franchisor of TGI Fridays restaurants. Defendants are 

franchisees for TGI Fridays restaurants in Elk Grove, Cupertino, San Mateo, and Roseville, 

California. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants breached the franchise agreements by failing to pay 

royalty fees, ad fees, and trade debts. Plaintiff further alleges that it validly terminated the 

franchise agreements following Defendants‟ breaches, but Defendants continued to operate TGI 

Fridays restaurants in violation of the Lanham Act.

On April 28, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 11.) 

Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from infringing upon Plaintiff‟s trademarks. Plaintiff‟s 

motion is scheduled to be heard on June 1, 2015, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 2 before District 

Judge Anthony W. Ishii. Under Local Rule 230(c), Defendants‟ opposition is due on May 18, 

2015.

On May 12, 2015, Defendants filed the present ex parte application. Defendants argue 

that a continuance is warranted to allow Defendants to conduct “expedited discovery” to support 

Defendants‟ opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction. A proposed order submitted 

with Defendants‟ ex parte application sets forth the categories of discovery Defendants sought 

from Plaintiff in connection with the motion for preliminary injunction.

II.

DISCUSSION

Defendants‟ ex parte application requests that the Court continue the hearing date on 

Plaintiff‟s motion for a preliminary injunction to allow Defendants to conduct expedited 

discovery to support their opposition to the motion. Defendants intend to demonstrate that 

Plaintiff breached its duties under the franchise agreements, Plaintiff caused any alleged breach 

by Defendants, Plaintiff improperly terminated the franchise agreements, and Plaintiff will not 

Case 1:15-cv-00592-AWI-SAB Document 24 Filed 05/13/15 Page 2 of 5
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

prevail on the merits of this action. Defendants seek to depose certain individuals from 

Plaintiff‟s company and ask that Plaintiff produce certain documents related to Defendants‟ 

alleged breach of the franchise agreements.

/ / /

Generally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d) provides that discovery shall not 

commence until after the conference required by Rule 26(f). However, expedited discovery prior 

to the Rule 26(f) conference may be permitted by the Court upon a showing of good cause. 

American LegalNet, Inc. v. Davis, 673 F. Supp. 2d 1063, 1066 (C.D. Cal. 2009). Good cause 

may be demonstrated in the context of an action involving a request for a preliminary injunction. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 advisory committee‟s note. However, “expedited discovery is not 

automatically granted merely because a party seeks a preliminary injunction.” American 

LegalNet, Inc., 673 F. Supp. 2d at 1066. Factors courts consider when determining whether 

good cause exists to conduct expedited discovery include 1) whether a preliminary injunction is 

pending, 2) the breadth of the discovery requests, 3) the purpose for requesting the expedited 

discovery, 4) the burden on the defendants to comply with the requests, and 5) how far in 

advance of the typical discovery process the request was made. Id.

In this case, the Court finds that the discovery requested by Defendants is overbroad and 

Defendants have not articulated a valid need for the expedited discovery. As an initial matter, 

the Court notes that Plaintiff, as the moving party to its motion for a preliminary injunction, 

bears the burden of proof of demonstrating that the requirements for a preliminary injunction 

have been met. Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers 

Local No. 70 of Alameda County, 415 U.S. 423, 443 (1974). Moreover, the burden on Plaintiff 

is a heavy one, as “plaintiffs seeking a preliminary injunction face a difficult task in proving that 

they are entitled to this „extraordinary remedy.‟” Earth Island Institute v. Carlton, 626 F.3d 462, 

469 (9th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, the lack of discovery in this action is more prejudicial to 

Plaintiff than Defendants, since Plaintiff carries the burden of proof on its motion. Generally, 

motions for expedited discovery in connection with motions for preliminary injunctions are made 

by the moving party requesting the injunctive relief, not the opposing party who does not carry 

Case 1:15-cv-00592-AWI-SAB Document 24 Filed 05/13/15 Page 3 of 5
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

the burden of justifying injunctive relief. See American LegalNet, Inc. v. Davis, 673 F. Supp. 2d 

1063 (C.D. Cal. 2009); El Pollo Locl, S.A. de C.V. v. El Pollo Loco, Inc., 344 F. Supp. 2d 986 

(S.D. Tex. 2004); Qwest Communications Intern., Inc. v. WorldQuest Networks, Inc., 213 

F.R.D. 418 (D. Colo. 2003); Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron America, Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273 

(N.D. Cal. 2002). Notably, discovery is not necessary for Defendants to get fair notice of the 

evidence Plaintiff will be relying on in support of its motion. Plaintiff‟s evidence was submitted 

with the motion.

Second, Defendants‟ ex parte application only offers vague labels and conclusions to 

justify the need for discovery. Defendants in their ex parte application have failed to 

demonstrate that a continuance is warranted or that the Court should not consider the merits of 

the motion for a preliminary injunction until further discovery is conducted. The purported 

“defenses” raised in the ex parte application are vague and unclear. Defendants argue that 

Plaintiff‟s interfered with Defendants‟ attempts to sell the franchises to a third party. Defendants 

offer no explanation of how Plaintiff‟s actions were wrongful or how those actions excuse or 

justify Defendants‟ alleged failure to pay the fees owed under the franchise agreements. It is 

unclear how Plaintiff‟s actions caused Defendants‟ own breach of the franchise agreements. 

Defendants vaguely argue that Plaintiff failed to comply with the franchise agreements and 

improperly terminated the agreements without explaining how. The Court will not delay 

resolution of Plaintiff‟s motion when Defendants fail to articulate exactly what they would be 

looking for during discovery and how it is relevant to the motion.

In addition to Defendants‟ failure to clearly articulate the bases of their defenses, 

Defendants fail to explain how their discovery requests are related to those defenses. 

Defendants‟ requests are overbroad. It is unclear why depositions are necessary of Plaintiff‟s 

Franchise Development Officer or the various corporate representatives on the topics listed in the 

proposed order, such as Plaintiff‟s strategies for franchise expansion and retraction in California. 

The 18 categories of documents requested by Defendants also appear overbroad, such as 

documents related to Defendants‟ attempts to sell their franchises and documents related to 

Plaintiff‟s inspection of TGI Fridays franchises. In light of Defendants‟ failure to articulate a 

Case 1:15-cv-00592-AWI-SAB Document 24 Filed 05/13/15 Page 4 of 5
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

5

specific need for any of this requested discovery, Defendants‟ request for expedited discovery 

appears to be based on the speculative hope that their requests uncover something that may be 

relevant to the motion for preliminary injunction. See American LegalNet, Inc., 673 F. Supp. 2d 

at 1068-69 (denying expedited discovery where party made no effort to limit the topics to those 

pertinent to motion for preliminary injunction).

Given the high burden on Plaintiff to justify the need for a preliminary injunction, 

Defendants need not present a complete evidentiary showing akin to what would be shown at 

trial, Defendants need only submit what little evidence is necessary to prevent Plaintiff from 

meeting its own high burden. Defendants make no attempt to explain why “expedited 

discovery” is necessary for Defendants to meet their burden in opposing Plaintiff‟s motion.

Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendants have failed to demonstrate 

good cause to warrant a continuance of the preliminary injunction hearing or to warrant 

expedited discovery procedures.

III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendants are not entitled to the relief 

requested in their ex parte application.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants‟ ex parte application is 

DENIED. The hearing on Defendants‟ ex parte application is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 13, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00592-AWI-SAB Document 24 Filed 05/13/15 Page 5 of 5