Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01290/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01290-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1446oc Notice of Removal - Other Contract

---

– 1 – 17cv1290

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

YEISER RESEARCH & 

DEVELOPMENT, LLC,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 17-cv-1290-BAS-MSB

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE

MOTION TO STAY 

PRODUCTION

[ECF No. 55]

v.

TEKNOR APEX COMPANY,

Defendant.

Defendant Teknor Apex Company (“Teknor”) moves ex parte to stay a March 

20, 2019 discovery production deadline ordered by Magistrate Judge Michael Berg 

pending this Court’s resolution of Teknor’s objection to a portion of Judge Berg’s 

underlying discovery order. (ECF No. 55.) Teknor has also filed an objection to 

Judge Berg’s discovery order as a noticed motion, with a selected hearing date of 

April 29, 2019. (ECF No. 56.) Teknor indicates that Plaintiff Yeiser Research & 

Development, LLC (“YRD”) will oppose Teknor’s discovery motion and YRD’s 

opposition will stand as its response to Teknor’s ex parte request. For the reasons 

herein, the Court denies Teknor’s ex parte motion to stay production pending the 

Court’s resolution of Teknor’s discovery motion. 

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

Teknor’s ex parte request arises from Teknor’s failure to produce documents 

Case 3:17-cv-01290-BAS-MSB Document 57 Filed 03/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
– 2 – 17cv1290

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 response to several of YRD’s document production requests. These document 

requests bear in part on YRD’s trade secrets claims under the Delaware Uniform 

Trade Secrets Act (“DUTSA”), 6 Del. C. § 2001 et seq., and the federal Defend Trade 

Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1831 et seq, but many requests are not facially limited to 

YRD’s trade secrets claims. (See ECF No. 42 at 19–52 (outlining YRD’s various 

production requests).) The Court previously determined that YRD has plausibly 

stated trade secrets claims by identifying trade secrets Teknor allegedly stole. (ECF 

No. 23.) Teknor now argues that YRD has failed to identify YRD’s trade secrets with 

reasonable specificity in response to an interrogatory Teknor propounded. (ECF No. 

55 ¶¶ 36.) Teknor objects to having to produce documents in response to YRD’s 

various discovery requests until YRD supplements its trade secrets interrogatory 

response. (ECF No. 55 ¶¶ 7, 12.) In a March 7, 2019 order, Judge Berg disagreed 

with Teknor’s contention about YRD’s interrogatory response and ordered Teknor to 

produce documents to several of YRD’s discovery requests by March 20, 2019 “as 

previously negotiated by the parties.” (ECF No. 50 at 2; ECF No. 55 ¶¶ 9–10.) 

Teknor filed its ex parte request to stay production on the eve of its production 

deadline. (ECF No. 55.) 

LEGAL STANDARD

“Ex parte applications are a form of emergency relief that will only be granted 

upon an adequate showing of good cause or irreparable injury to the party seeking 

relief.” Clark v. Time Warner Cable, No. 07-1797-VBF(RCx), 2007 WL 1334965, 

*1 (C.D. Cal. May 3, 2007). To justify ex parte relief, the moving party must establish 

(1) that its cause will be irreparably prejudiced if the underlying motion is heard 

according to regular noticed motion procedures, and (2) that it is without fault in 

creating the crisis that requires ex parte relief, or that the crisis occurred as a result of 

excusable neglect. See Mission Power Eng’g Co. v. Continental Cas. Co., 883 F. 

Supp. 488, 492 (C.D. Cal. 1995). “An ex parte application is a means of obtaining 

extraordinary relief and is appropriate in only rare circumstances.” Santos v. TWC 

Case 3:17-cv-01290-BAS-MSB Document 57 Filed 03/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
– 3 – 17cv1290

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

Administration LLC, No. CV 13-04799 MMM (CWx), 2014 WL 12703021, *1 (C.D. 

Cal. 2014). 

DISCUSSION

Teknor’s “filing of a motion for review of the Magistrate Judge’s order is not 

sufficient to suspend defendant’s obligation to comply with the Magistrate Judge’s 

order.” Ahmed v. HSBC Bank United States, No. ED CV 15-2057 FMO (SPx), 2018 

WL 504672, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2018). A magistrate judge’s decisions “should 

not be considered ineffective, advisory, or nonfinal simply because they may be 

reviewed by the district court.” Kimbrell v. ADIA, S.A., 834 F. Supp. 1313, 1317 (D. 

Kan. 1993). “Decisions by a magistrate judge on nondispositive motions are intended 

to be effective unless overturned by the district judge, just as decisions of a district 

judge are intended to be effective unless overturned by a circuit court.” Id. Even if, 

as Teknor argues, Judge Berg’s conclusion that YRD has identified its alleged trade 

secrets with reasonable specificity is shown to be clearly erroneous, “[e]ven incorrect 

orders from courts ordinarily must be obeyed until set aside[.]” Maness v. Meyers, 

419 U.S. 449, 457–58 (1975). Thus, the Court cannot find that ex parte relief from 

the production deadline is warranted simply because Teknor seeks review of Judge 

Berg’s order.

Teknor’s ex parte motion claims prejudice because “without YRD’s reasonably 

specific statement as to the bounds of the alleged trade secrets it asserts in this action,” 

Teknor “risks YRD molding its trade secret claims to Teknor’s confidential, 

proprietary, and/or trade secret information” and Teknor “is unable to adequately 

formulate a well-reasoned defense because it is presently unclear what the alleged 

trade secrets actually are.” (ECF No. 55 ¶ 12.) Teknor further argues that a failure 

to grant ex parte relief now will moot Teknor’s discovery motion objecting to Judge 

Berg’s order. (ECF No. 55 ¶ 13.) These arguments underscore for the Court that a 

denial of ex parte relief now will not irreparably harm Teknor, nor moot Teknor’s 

Case 3:17-cv-01290-BAS-MSB Document 57 Filed 03/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
– 4 – 17cv1290

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

discovery motion. 

This Court has broad authority to fashion appropriate relief in the event that 

Teknor prevails before this Court in showing that Judge Berg clearly erred in finding 

that YRD has adequately identified its trade secrets. For example, the Court can order 

YRD to destroy or return all discovery YRD received from Teknor as a result of 

compliance with Judge Berg’s order. See Church of Scientology of California v. 

United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12–13 (1992) (“[A] court does have power to effectuate a 

partial remedy by ordering the Government to destroy or return any and all copies it 

may have in its possession, [which] is sufficient to prevent this case from being 

moot.”). The Court can also prohibit YRD from relying on any information contained 

in the documents Teknor produces in response to Judge Berg’s order. See Doe v. 

S.E.C., No. MC 11-80209 CRB, 2012 WL 78586, *5 (N.D. Jan. 10, Cal. 2012) (“If 

the Ninth Circuit finds the subpoena improper and reverses this Court’s order denying 

the motion to quash, this Court will require the SEC to disavow reliance on any 

information gained from the subpoena.”). Thus, a denial of Teknor’s request to stay 

compliance with Judge Berg’s order will not cause irreparable harm. See United 

States v. Anderson, No. 14-cv-01932-JST, 2015 WL 294831, *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 

2015) (“District Courts have routinely found that no irreparable injury would result 

from the denial of a stay pending appeal of an order enforcing compliance with an 

IRS summons.”).

CONCLUSION & ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Teknor’s ex parte motion. (ECF 

No. 55.) Teknor shall comply with Judge Berg’s order no later than March 21, 

2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 20, 2019

Case 3:17-cv-01290-BAS-MSB Document 57 Filed 03/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4