Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00920/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00920-7/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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

EXAMWORKS, a Delaware limited 

liability company, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TODD BALDINI, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:20-CV-00920-KJM-DB 

ORDER 

Plaintiff ExamWorks, LLC has sued its former employees, L. Stuart Girard, Todd 

Baldini, Pamella Tejada and Abygail Bird (collectively “defendants”), alleging misappropriation 

of its trade secrets. ExamWorks moves for a preliminary injunction barring defendants’ 

continued misappropriation of those trade secrets. The court, having considered the arguments of 

counsel on May 22, 2020, and June 3, 2020, and the parties’ briefs including supplemental 

briefing, HAS GRANTED plaintiff’s motion, for the reasons EXPLAINED below.1

1

 This order provides the court’s explanation for the summary order entered previously on 

June 3, 2020. See ECF No. 45. The court notes defendants have filed a motion to stay the 

preliminary injunction order, ECF No. 49, which the court will turn to next. 

Case 2:20-cv-00920-KJM-DB Document 66 Filed 06/11/20 Page 1 of 27
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 

A. Factual Background and Allegations 

ExamWorks is an independent firm that operates in what it dubs a “med-legal” 

space by managing medical examinations, peer reviews, bill reviews, Medicare compliance and 

related services for clients including insurance carriers, third party claim administrators and 

government agencies throughout the United States. Nalley Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 4-5. Through its 

network of medical professionals, ExamWorks offers medical evaluation services, including 

Independent Medical Examinations (“IMEs”), Qualified Medical Evaluations (“QMEs”) and 

California Subsequent Injury Benefit Trust Fund (“SIBTF”) evaluations for workers’ 

compensation claims, personal injury, and auto and disability claims. Id. ¶¶ 3, 16. 

1. Former Employees’ Departure from ExamWorks 

Between February 24 and May 4, 2020, plaintiff’s former employees, Lawrence 

Stuart Girard, Todd Baldini, Pamella Tejada and Abygail Bird (together the “Former 

Employees”) either resigned or, once ExamWorks got wind of the Former Employees’ plans, 

were terminated from ExamWorks. Compl. ¶¶ 41–45, ECF No. 1. Specifically, Tejada resigned 

on February 24, 2020 and left on March 13, 2020; Girard left on March 13, 2020; ExamWorks 

terminated Baldini on April 29, 2020 and terminated Bird on May 4, 2020. Id. 

Girard had served as Vice President of Sales and Marketing and worked for 

ExamWorks for more than a decade. Id. ¶ 20. Baldini was the Regional Vice President of 

Operations in California and worked for ExamWorks for over nine years. Id. ¶ 21. Together, 

Girard and Baldini led ExamWorks’ California operation. Id. ¶ 22. Baldini more broadly 

supervised ExamWorks’ business in the Western regions, including California and Hawaii. Id. 

¶ 33. Due to their management roles, Girard and Baldini had full access to ExamWorks’ 

financials and other trade secret and confidential information. Id. ¶ 22. 

Tejada was the SIBTF Division Manager in Sacramento, California and had 

worked at ExamWorks for nearly four years. Id. ¶ 23. Tejada’s duties included meeting with 

clients and perspective clients, assigning new cases to physicians, educating physicians on 

Case 2:20-cv-00920-KJM-DB Document 66 Filed 06/11/20 Page 2 of 27
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 

reporting requirements and management of the internal operational team. Id. Tejada had access 

to all data associated with ExamWorks’ California operations and SIBTF work. Id. 

Bird worked for ExamWorks for more than seven years as a marketing director 

until she was promoted to Regional Account Executive for California. Id. ¶ 24. In her various 

roles, Bird was responsible for marketing, doctor referrals, raising ExamWorks’ profile and, 

generally, bringing in business for ExamWorks. Id. Both Bird and Tejada worked closely with 

Girard and Baldini. Id. 

2. “Project Palo Alto” 

 Following the Former Employees’ departure, ExamWorks discovered that, 

beginning in October 2018, the Former Employees had begun development of a comprehensive 

business plan dubbed “Project Palo Alto,” as reflected in multiple emails and planning 

documents. TRO Mot., ECF No. 4, at 112

 (citing Holley Decl. ¶¶ 8, 10, ECF No. 28-1). In a 

document dated April 8, 2019, Former Employees identified the need to plan “the best way to 

depart ExamWorks without raising suspicion. Was it best to go ‘One at a time vs. together’? 

What would the explanation be for their departures?” Holley Decl., Ex. E (“Meeting Outline”), 

ECF No. 21-2, at 18–19 (“If separate, who first, when, how and why? . . . if Second who second 

when, how and why?”). 

 Through expedited discovery after the court issued a temporary restraining order, 

ExamWorks learned the “Project Palo Alto” business plan outlined creation of a company called 

“Feinberg Med-Legal Consultants,” which would compete directly with ExamWorks’ emerging 

SIBTF business and expand initially by “targeting two specific demographics: 1. Physician 

recruiting and 2. Applicant Attorney3 Firms.” Holley Decl., Ex. O (“Feinberg Med-Legal 

Consultants Plan Overview”), ECF No. 21-2, at 27. The new company would be co-owned by 

Girard, ExamWorks vendor James Tuthill and former ExamWorks medical provider Dr. Steven 

2

 The court cites to the page numbers assigned by the court’s ECF system. 

3

 Applicant or applicants’ attorneys represent injured workers filing for workers’ 

compensation. See, e.g., https://wwwcaaa.org/ (website for California Applicants’ Attorneys 

Association). 

Case 2:20-cv-00920-KJM-DB Document 66 Filed 06/11/20 Page 3 of 27
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 

Feinberg. Id. William George would be an equity partner as well and serve as CFO. Id. at 19. 

The plan also included a 24-month budget for the new company. Harris Decl. ¶ 18, ECF No. 21 

(“Among the files Girard attempted to delete while the USB drive was attached were “Project 

Palo Alto Construction meeting 4-8-19.docx” and “FML Budget Draft-24 month 7-3-19 Run Rate 

Analysis Final.xlsx”); Holley Decl., Ex. Q (“Draft Budget”), ECF No. 21-2, at 31 (attachment to 

email showing link to document titled draft budget for Project Palo Alto). 

3. ExamWorks’ Forensic Investigation 

Before filing the instant motion, ExamWorks engaged a forensic firm, K2 

Intelligence and its partner forensics and e-discovery provider KLDiscovery (collectively “K2”), 

“in order to investigate the defendant’s [sic] actions related to this lawsuit.” Nalley, Decl. ¶ 27 

(citing Holley Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 21-2). K2’s analysis revealed Former Employees took 

ExamWorks’ documents and information with them when they left the company, including 

(1) detailed contact information about doctors and clients, and company-wide customer and 

doctor lists; (2) financial information about plaintiff’s California operations; (3) a California sales 

and operational presentation; and (4) specific arrangements regarding the compensation plaintiff 

offers to certain doctors, Nalley Decl. ¶ 27; defendants emailed this information to their personal 

email accounts or to third parties, Harris Decl. ¶ 13, ECF No. 21. As recently as March 22, 2020, 

just over a week after Girard and Tejada left ExamWorks and about a month before Baldini was 

terminated, it appears Baldini sent the file titled “Cases-01-2019 to 03-202.xlsx,” an ExamWorks 

document containing information on more than 53,000 cases from the last year and a half with 

detailed contact information for both doctors and customers, from his ExamWorks email to his 

personal email address. Id. ¶ 29. 

The K2 forensic analysis also revealed that, as early as March 3, 2019, Girard sent 

documents titled “Brice B Fee Schedule 022719.PDF,” “Proposal- Brice 022719.PDF,” “Brice B 

Fee Schedule Disbursement 022719,” and “Professional Fee Agreement_CA EW BBrice WC Fee 

Schedule 022719.pdf” to his personal email address. Id. ¶ 39 (“Together these documents 

represent the ‘recipe’ book of how ExamWorks engages doctors into its network.”). On April 5, 

2019, Baldini emailed to himself documents titled, “EW California_MQY_6Jun19.xlsx,” 

Case 2:20-cv-00920-KJM-DB Document 66 Filed 06/11/20 Page 4 of 27
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 

“Financials by Company-Region-BusUnit – 2018 SIBTF.xlsx,” “Budget Worksheet – CA 

2019.xlsx,” “Likely Calcs – gina.xlsx” and “California WC Fee Analysis 10_17_19v10.xlsx.” Id. 

¶¶ 33–36 (documents are types of financial tools, valuable for business budget projection). Later 

in the year, on October 17, 2019, Girard sent “Page Count Reports Reveals Sups and QMEs 

v2.xlsx” to his personal email address. Id. ¶ 36 (citing confidential and proprietary models used 

to analyze effects of expected changes in California’s rules related to QMEs for Workers’ 

Compensation). Less than two weeks later, on October 29, 2019, Girard sent files titled “SIBTF 

Cases – 01-2019 to 10-2019.xlsx,” and “SIBTF CA Referral Tracker by Office v2 01-2019 to 10-

2019.xlsx” to his personal email. Nalley Decl. ¶ 31. These files contain specific billing details, 

including doctor goals, average fees per specialty and a breakdown of the SIBTF referrals by 

month for more than 1,200 of ExamWorks’ cases. Id. K2’s analysis further revealed that on 

January 8, 2020, Girard sent “Sales and Operations Meeting 010820.pptx” to his personal email; 

this PowerPoint presentation was used at plaintiff’s quarterly meeting to discuss high-level 

strategy and “includes lists of specific ExamWorks clients that were identified as strategic 

targets.” Id. ¶ 37. Moreover, “on page 57 of the presentation, the top five offices for a certain 

account representative is identified including how many referrals these law firms have provided.” 

Id. The next day, on January 9, 2020, Girard sent himself “2019 First Case – CA Only.xlsx.” Id. 

¶ 32. 

 K2’s analysis of the other two Former Employees materials produced similar 

results indicating, for example, in December 2019, five months before she was terminated and 

three months before Girard left ExamWorks, Bird sent documents to Girard’s personal email, 

including files titled “Clients. Xlsx,” containing 125,756 unique client entries with detailed 

contact information for plaintiff’s entire United States client base; she also forwarded 

“Doctors.xlsx,” “Doctors List 073018.xlsx” and “EW WC Emails 2.13.2020.xlsx,” containing 

detailed contact information for more than 10,000 doctors across plaintiff’s entire doctor network, 

including names, email addresses and specialties. Id. ¶¶ 28, 30. On January 16, 2020, Tejada 

sent the list identified as “Brown & Todoroff.xlsx” to her personal email address, noting “[E]xcel 

sheet represents pending cases including status of cases, for this particular law firm.” Id. ¶ 38. 

Case 2:20-cv-00920-KJM-DB Document 66 Filed 06/11/20 Page 5 of 27
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 

6 

Ms. Tejada takes the position that “[o]n January 16, 2020, as part of my work for ExamWorks, I 

visited the law firm, Brown & Todoroff. Because his [sic] office was located in a small town, 

where I could not be sure I would have an internet connection, I emailed myself a spreadsheet of 

his pending cases for my meeting. I did this to ensure that I would have the spreadsheet on my 

desktop for my meeting with the law firm client, and that I would not need to access the internet 

to pull up the spreadsheet.” Tejada Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 26-4. 

Finally, the forensic analysis shows that only six days after he left ExamWorks, on 

March 19, 2020, Girard emailed Dr. Feinberg from his IPM email account, copying Tejada and 

telling them: “Lots to do. This is the spreadsheet we used to blast our message yesterday.” Pl.’s 

Suppl. Br., ECF No. 39, at 2 (referencing attachment titled “Client 2019.xlsx”). Mot. Prelim. Inj., 

Ex. 1 (“Girard March 19 Email”), ECF No. 52-1, at 15 (attachment to email showing Excel 

spreadsheet) (sealed).4 There is a spreadsheet in the record labeled “Client 2019.xlsx” that 

plaintiff asserts is very similar to the spreadsheet defendants must have used for the March 19 

“blast out.” Pl.’s Suppl. Br. at 5 (referencing Holley Decl. at 11–18). On the eve of the court’s 

June 3 hearing, Girard attempted to clean up the record on this point, saying, “When I sent out the 

March 19, 2020 email, I must have been confused when referencing the ExamWorks client list to 

describe a prior ‘blast.’ I was certainly referring to an IPM patient letter that . . . had just been 

sent out only to IPM patients.” Girard Suppl. Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 43; id., Ex. 1 (template of letter 

to IPM customers) at 5. 

B. Procedural Background 

 On May 4, 2020, plaintiff filed its complaint against defendants asserting the 

following claims: (1) misappropriation of trade secrets in violation of the federal Defend Trade 

Secrets Act (“DTSA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1836; (2) misappropriation of trade secrets in violation of the 

California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 3426, et seq.; (3) breach of 

employment agreement; and (4) breach of fiduciary duty and duty of loyalty. See Compl. 

4

 The court granted plaintiff’s request to seal documents, ECF No. 51, and directed 

plaintiff to file a redacted version by June 16, 2020 to file on the docket. See ECF No. 61. 

Case 2:20-cv-00920-KJM-DB Document 66 Filed 06/11/20 Page 6 of 27
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 

7 

 A day after filing the complaint, on May 5, 2020, plaintiff moved the court based 

on both DTSA and CUTSA claims to temporarily restrain defendants from acquiring, accessing, 

disclosing, or using, or attempting to acquire, access, disclosure, or use any trade secrets or 

confidential information of ExamWorks, or derivatives thereof, including, but not limited to, any 

documents that discuss, forward, reference, or incorporate the trade secrets or confidential 

information of ExamWorks. See generally Mot. TRO, ECF No. 4. Plaintiff also filed its motion 

for discovery on an expedited basis, Mot. Disc., ECF No. 6, with a certificate of service on 

defendants, ECF No. 13. The court promptly set the matter for a videoconference hearing on 

May 8, 2020, ECF No. 15. See also May 8 Hr’g Tr., ECF No. 25; May 22 Hr’g Tr., ECF No. 38. 

Plaintiff’s counsel attended that hearing, as did Ms. Byrd who at the time was in pro per; no other 

defendants were represented at hearing. ECF No. 15. The court granted plaintiff’s motion for a 

temporary restraining order, finding that plaintiff carried its burden at this early stage of the 

litigation by raising serious questions going to the merits of the dispute and showing the balance 

of hardship tips in its favor. TRO, ECF No. 17, at 2. 

On May 15, 2020, defendants appeared through counsel on the court’s docket and 

formally opposed plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. Opp’n, ECF No. 26. On May 18, 

2020, plaintiff replied. Reply, ECF No. 27. As allowed by the court, the parties filed 

supplemental briefs. ECF Nos. 39–40. The court set the matter for a full preliminary injunction 

hearing on May 22, 2020. Id. After that hearing, held by videoconference, in light of the 

expedited discovery that was underway, the court found circumstances justified leaving the 

previously entered TRO in effect for a brief period of time pending supplemental briefing based 

on the discovery. ECF No. 37. 

 On June 3, 2020, the court heard oral argument again and later that day granted the 

preliminary injunction in a summary order with explanation to follow. Prelim. Inj. Order, ECF 

No. 45. This is the order EXPLAINING the court’s grant of the preliminary injunction. At no 

time, either in their briefing or during hearing, did defendants request the posting of bond; thus 

the court has not required one. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. New Images of Beverly Hills, 

321 F.3d 878, 882 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted) (no abuse of discretion in not reaching issue 

Case 2:20-cv-00920-KJM-DB Document 66 Filed 06/11/20 Page 7 of 27
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 

8 

of bond where defendant did not request bond or submit any evidence of damages she would 

incur as result of injunction). 

The court also DETERMINES, as explained below, that defendants presumptively 

bear the costs associated with the forensic analysis plaintiff says is required to complete review of 

electronic discovery, subject to defendants’ ability to rebut the presumption in discovery motion 

practice. ECF 39 at 11. 

II. LEGAL STANDARDS 

A. Preliminary Injunction 

“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right[,]” 

Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted), and should not 

be granted unless the movant carries the burden of proving this extraordinary remedy is warranted 

by clear and convincing evidence, Lopez v. Brewer, 680 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2012) (“A 

preliminary injunction . . . should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries 

the burden of persuasion.”) (quoting Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997))). In 

determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction, federal courts must consider whether the 

moving party “[1] is likely to succeed on the merits, . . . [2] is likely to suffer irreparable harm in 

the absence of preliminary relief, . . . [3] the balance of equities tips in [the movant’s] favor, and 

. . . [4] an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. 

The Ninth Circuit has “also articulated an alternate formulation of the Winter

test[.]” Farris v. Seabrook, 677 F.3d 858, 864 (9th Cir. 2012). That formulation is referred to as 

the “serious questions” or the “sliding scale” approach: “‘serious questions’ going to the merits 

and a balance of hardships that tips sharply towards the plaintiff can support issuance of a 

preliminary injunction, so long as the plaintiff also shows that there is a likelihood of irreparable 

injury and that the injunction is in the public interest.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 

632 F.3d 1127, 1131–35 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he ‘serious questions’ approach survives Winter 

when applied as part of the four-element Winter test.”). Under the “serious questions” approach 

to a preliminary injunction, “[t]he elements of the preliminary injunction test must be balanced, 

so that a stronger showing of one element may offset a weaker showing of another.” Lopez, 680 

Case 2:20-cv-00920-KJM-DB Document 66 Filed 06/11/20 Page 8 of 27
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 

9 

F.3d at 1072. In each case and irrespective of the approach to a preliminary injunction, a court 

must balance the competing alleged harms while considering the effects on the parties of the 

granting or withholding of the injunctive relief. Winter, 555 U.S. at 24. In exercising that 

discretion, a court must also consider the public consequences of the extraordinary remedy. Id. 

B. DTSA and UTSA 

As noted, plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief is based on both its federal and 

state trade secrets claims. “California has adopted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“UTSA”), 

which codifies the basic principles of common law trade secret protection.” MAI Sys. Corp. v. 

Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 520 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing Cal. Civ. Code §§ 3426–3426.10 

(“CUTSA”)). To establish a violation of the CUTSA, a plaintiff must show “(1) the existence of 

a trade secret, and (2) misappropriation of the trade secret.” AccuImage Diagnostics Corp v. 

Terarecon, Inc., 260 F. Supp. 2d 941, 950 (N.D. Cal. 2003). 

At the federal level, Congress has relatively recently enacted the Defend Trade 

Secrets Act (DTSA) to “provide Federal jurisdiction for the theft of trade secrets.” See DTSA of 

2016, Pub. L. No. 114-153, 130 Stat. 376 (DTSA) (codified in scattered sections of title 18 of the 

United States Code). Similarly to the CUTSA, the DTSA permits the “owner of a trade secret 

that is misappropriated” to bring a civil action, 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b), and includes substantially 

similar definitions of “trade secret” and “misappropriation” as found in California state law. See 

18 U.S.C. § 1839(3), (5). 

The parties do not assert any material difference between the CUTSA and the 

DTSA. Because the elements of a trade secret misappropriation claim under the DTSA and 

CUTSA are substantially similar, the court analyzes both claims together below. See Vendavo, 

Inc. v. Price f(x) AG, No. 17-CV-6930-RS, 2018 WL 1456697, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2018). 

C. California Employment Law Balanced Against Trade Secret Protections 

 At the same time that it provides for protection of trade secrets, California law 

also prohibits contractual provisions “by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful 

profession, trade, or business of any kind.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600 (“Section 16600”). 

This California rule is intended to protect an individual’s right to engage in employment and 

Case 2:20-cv-00920-KJM-DB Document 66 Filed 06/11/20 Page 9 of 27
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 

10 

businesses of their choosing. Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, 44 Cal. 4th 937, 946 (2008) 

(citations omitted). “[T]here appears to be a trend among California courts of finding that 

§ 16600 represents a fundamental public policy interest in California.” Stryker Sales Corp. v. 

Zimmer Biomet, Inc., 231 F. Supp. 3d 606, 621 (E.D. Cal. 2017). 

In fact, California courts have long recognized the delicate balance between 

promoting unfettered competition by parties such as defendants here and protecting a business 

like ExamWorks from unfair conduct. As the California Supreme Court observed nearly seventyfive years ago, “[e]quity will to the fullest extent protect the property rights of employers in their 

trade secrets and otherwise, but public policy and natural justice require that equity should also be 

solicitous for the right inherent in all people, not fettered by negative covenants upon their part to 

the contrary to follow any of the common occupations of life.” Cont’l Car-Na-Var Corp. v. 

Moseley, 24 Cal. 2d 104, 110 (1944). In striking the appropriate balance in a trade secrets 

misappropriation case, a court is not constrained from fashioning an appropriate remedy as long 

as the court remains “highly cognizant of the important policies embodied” in Section 16600. 

Pyro Spectaculars N., Inc. v. Souza, 861 F. Supp. 2d 1079, 1096 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (citing The Ret. 

Grp. v. Galante, 176 Cal. App. 4th 1226, 1237 (2009) (clarifying the proper focus in saying “it is 

not the solicitation of the former employer’s customers, but is instead the misuse of trade secret 

information, that may be enjoined”) (emphasis in original)). In other words, “[w]hile it has been 

legally recognized that a former employee may use general knowledge, skill, and experience 

acquired in his or her former employment in competition with a former employer, the former 

employee may not use confidential information or trade secrets in doing so.” Morlife, Inc. v. 

Perry, 56 Cal. App. 4th 1514, 1519 (1997). The misuse of trade secrets can take the form of 

improper solicitation if the solicitation is based on another’s trade secrets. Id. at 1521; see also 

Klamath-Orleans Lumber, Inc. v. Miller, 87 Cal. App. 3d 458, 465 (Ct. App. 1978) (“There can 

be no doubt that a list of preferred customers, ascertained originally by continuous solicitation 

and investigation, and the specially arranged list of charges and bonuses developed by long 

experience, constitutes a trade secret of value.” (citation omitted)). 

Case 2:20-cv-00920-KJM-DB Document 66 Filed 06/11/20 Page 10 of 27
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 

11 

The court explains below its balancing of the law of trade secret protection with 

the defendants’ essential right to fairly engage in their chosen professions, if they do so lawfully. 

III. DISCUSSION 

The court has found plaintiff satisfies its burden under the Winter test so as to 

warrant preliminary relief. 

A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits 

The court first focuses on the likelihood of success of ExamWorks’ claims under 

California and federal trade secrets law. Engility Corp. v. Daniels, 16-CV-2473-WJM-MEH, 

2016 WL 7034976, at *8 (D. Colo. Dec. 2, 2016) (analyzing only certain claims from complaint 

in preliminary injunction analysis based on content of plaintiff’s preliminary injunction request). 

 1. Existence of Trade Secrets 

A “trade secret” is “information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, . . . or 

process, that: (1) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being 

generally known to the public . . . , and (2) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the 

circumstances to maintain its secrecy.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.1(d). In other words, the 

information “is valuable because it is unknown to others” and “the owner has attempted to keep 

[it] secret.” DVD Copy Control Assn. v. Bunner, 116 Cal. App. 4th 241, 251 (2004) (citation 

omitted). 

a) Derives Independent Economic Value 

 ExamWorks identifies the following information as trade secrets contained in the 

files it alleges the Former Employees copied and retained. The court refers to these items here as 

the “ExamWorks Trade Secret Information.” 

- ExamWorks’ “playbook” of confidential details about its 

California Subsequent Injury Benefit Trust Fund (“SIBTF”) 

business, including case specific, doctor and revenue 

information. For example, doctor billing totals, average fees per 

specialty, and other marketing information such as referral 

details for cases (“Client and Doctor Lists”); 

- ExamWorks’ confidential financial documents which is not 

shared with clients or otherwise, setting forth how ExamWorks 

Case 2:20-cv-00920-KJM-DB Document 66 Filed 06/11/20 Page 11 of 27
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 

12 

engages doctors in its provider network, including information 

on fee splits and financials for the California region, which 

would allow a competitor to easily recruit doctors by offering 

more lucrative terms (“Recipe Book”); 

- ExamWorks’ confidential database of 124,756 unique client 

entries with detailed information for its entire U.S. client base 

and more than 10,000 doctors active in ExamWorks’ network, 

including detailed information on more than 53,000 cases from 

IMEC5

 (“IMEC Database”); and 

- ExamWorks’ confidential breakdown of sales and operations 

strategies for California, including high-level sales stratagem, 

top clients in various categories, top doctors, referrals by client 

office as well as detailed revenue information, goals and targets, 

which also includes referral information from new clients. 

(“Marketing & Business Strategy Documents”). 

Nalley Decl. ¶¶ 28–29, 31–34, 37–39; Compl. ¶¶ 61, 89 (recipe book pled, as well as summary of 

trade secrets); Nalley Decl. ¶¶ 10–19 (detailed descriptions of trade secrets). 

For the purposes of this motion, on the present record, the court finds the 

information ExamWorks claims as trade secret qualifies as such, given that its compilations of 

information “derive[] independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally 

known to the public.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.1(d)(1); see Pyro Spectaculars N., Inc., 861 F. 

Supp. 2d at 1089 (finding, though publicly available customer identity and contact information by 

itself may not be trade secret, plaintiff’s “comprehensive, if not encyclopedic, compilation of 

customer, operator, and vendor information” was likely protectable trade secret). 

 ExamWorks’ “Client and Doctor Lists,” for example, are likely protectable trade 

secrets if nonpublic, as addressed below. “Under the California [CUTSA], Cal. Civ. Code 

§§ 3426, et seq., a customer list may constitute a protected trade secret if it includes nonpublic 

information that provides a ‘substantial business advantage’ to competitors.” Pollara v. Radiant 

Logistics, Inc., 650 F. App’x 372, 373 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Morlife, Inc., 56 Cal. App. 4th at 

5

 ExamWorks’ information is housed in its proprietary IMECentric and InfoCentric 

databases. Because IMECentric and InfoCentric programs are used in conjunction with each 

other, Nalley Decl. ¶ 7, for purposes of simplification, this order refers to these databases as 

“IMEC”. 

Case 2:20-cv-00920-KJM-DB Document 66 Filed 06/11/20 Page 12 of 27
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 

13 

1514). “As a general principle, the more difficult information is to obtain, and the more time and 

resources expended by an employer in gathering it, the more likely a court will find such 

information constitutes a trade secret.” Morlife, 56 Cal. App. 4th at 1522 (citation omitted). For 

the purposes of obtaining a preliminary injunction, ExamWorks has offered sufficient evidence to 

show it has expended substantial time and effort identifying customers with particular needs and 

characteristics in compilations that contain more than mere identities and addresses easily 

identified through publicly available sources; the compilations would give a competitor a 

substantial business advantage in seeking to offer services to compete with ExamWorks’ fully 

integrated proprietary private network, Compl. ¶ 11; Nalley Decl. ¶¶ 13, 28–29 (referencing 

millions of dollars spent annually and innumerable person-hours to develop IMEC, which 

contains the list identified as “Clients.xlsx” with 124,756 unique client entries and detailed 

information for ExamWorks’ entire United States client base, as well as the list identified as 

“Doctors.xlsx” containing detailed contact information for more than 10,000 doctors across 

ExamWorks’ entire United States doctor network); Morlife, 56 Cal. App. 4th at 1521 (“[W]here 

the employer has expended time and effort identifying customers with particular needs or 

characteristics, courts will prohibit former employees from using this information to capture a 

share of the market.”). 

ExamWorks’ Recipe Book, IMEC Database and Marketing & Business Strategy 

Documents are also likely protectable trade secrets. These documents comprise various marketing 

and outreach strategies, explaining how ExamWorks engages doctors into its network. Compl. 

¶ 61; Nalley Decl. ¶ 43. Specifically, ExamWorks spends significant funds on internal recruiters 

to persuade doctors to join ExamWorks’ network. Nalley Decl. ¶ 13. To be competitive, it also 

nurtures relationships with the applicant attorneys making up the workers’ compensation bar, who 

serve as a source of doctor referrals. See, e.g., Pl.’s Suppl. Br. at 4; Mot. TRO, Ex. J 

(Clients.xlsx), ECF No. 28-1 (part 2), at 11–18 (NATIVE-Clients) (sealed); id., ECF No. 28-3 

(part 4), at 1–912 (NATIVE-Doctors) (sealed). ExamWorks captures key strategic information in 

a variety of ways, including revenue per doctor, margin or profitability per doctor and negotiated 

fee per exam for that particular doctor. Nalley Decl. ¶ 15. At this point, IMEC contains 

Case 2:20-cv-00920-KJM-DB Document 66 Filed 06/11/20 Page 13 of 27
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 

14 

information on more than 2,000 doctors who practice in California alone. Id. ¶ 13; see Argo Grp. 

US, Inc. v. Prof’l Governmental Underwriters, Inc., No. SACV 13-1787 AG (DFMx), 2013 WL 

11327772, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2013) (“[I]nformation regarding profit margins, costs, and 

market research can be protected trade secrets.” (citing Whyte v. Schlage Lock Co., 101 Cal. App. 

4th 1443, 1456 (2002))). 

For these reasons, ExamWorks has met its burden to show its compilations of 

information, specifically the Client and Doctors List, IMEC database, and the Marketing & 

Business Strategy Documents, have value and are not publicly available, and therefore likely 

qualify as trade secrets. 

b) Subject of Reasonable Efforts to Maintain Secrecy 

The court also finds ExamWorks has met its burden to show at this stage the 

ExamWorks Trade Secret Information has been “the subject of efforts that are reasonable under 

the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.1(d)(2); Pyro Spectaculars, 

861 F. Supp. 2d at 1092 (plaintiff’s “security practices are not perfect,” but sufficiently 

reasonable to support preliminary injunction). Specifically, ExamWorks requires all employees 

to sign confidentiality agreements recognizing the proprietary nature of its “[c]ustomer names, 

contact information, account numbers or financial information and proprietary business 

information not otherwise available to the public related to how ExamWorks does business.” 

Bartsch Decl., ¶¶ 6–7, ECF No. 4-3. “Employees must recertify their understanding of the 

Employee Handbook and Code of Business Conduct and Ethics at regular intervals.” Id. The 

Employee Handbook requires employees to maintain the confidentiality of, inter alia, 

ExamWorks’ “property . . . including any documents or files in [the employee’s] possession and 

any company property in electronic form” and “ensure that all ExamWorks’ property is returned 

to ExamWorks.” Id. ¶ 11. Here, all the Former Employees named as defendants signed 

confidentiality agreements confirming their understanding of, and agreement to, ExamWorks’ 

confidentiality policies; in so doing they also agreed to return ExamWorks’ information upon 

their departure or termination. See Compl. ¶¶ 31, 34, 39; id., Ex. A (Girard), at 39; id., Ex. C 

Case 2:20-cv-00920-KJM-DB Document 66 Filed 06/11/20 Page 14 of 27
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 

15 

(Baldini), at 49; id. Ex. E (Tejada), at 56; id., Ex. F (Bird), at 60.6 The confidentiality agreements 

were in consideration of employment with ExamWorks, and by signing them at the start of their 

employment defendants had notice of the agreements’ terms as conditions of their employment 

and agreed to be bound by them. Cf. AUA Private Equity Partners, LLC v. Soto, No. 1:17-CV8035-GHW, 2018 WL 1684339, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 5, 2018) (acquisition by improper means 

properly pleaded where plaintiff alleged defendant violated confidentiality agreements she signed 

upon being hired, which created “contractual duty to abide by their terms”). 

Additionally, ExamWorks’ network is password protected, see Compl. ¶ 27; 

Bartsch Decl., Ex. A (“ExamWorks’ Employee Handbook”), ECF No. 4-3 (“All Systems 

passwords and encryption keys must be available and known to the Company[.]”), and access is 

limited to employees who need particular data sets for the purposes of carrying out their 

employment. Bartsch Decl., Ex. A. ExamWorks issues mobile devices to employees, who were 

then able to determine the passwords they would use to protect ExamWorks’ information. See

Compl., Ex. E, ECF No. 1, at 46 (ExamWorks Mobile Device Policy, providing in pertinent part 

that “ExamWorks’ Mobile Device Policy applies to all uses of your device for ExamWorks’ 

business or on behalf of ExamWorks. In addition, you must: Consent to ExamWorks’ efforts to 

manage the device and secure its data, including providing ExamWorks with any necessary 

passwords.”). Employees are required to take security awareness training annually and, when an 

employee leaves the company, ExamWorks automatically cuts off all access to databases and the 

network by that employee. Id. 

ExamWorks also requires departing employees to certify that all company assets, 

including trade secrets, have been returned, instructing these employees to “check personal 

computers, email accounts, and thumb drives” and “asks each employee to return all 

ExamWorks’ property” before departure. Bartsch Decl. ¶ 11. Here, for example, after 

ExamWorks terminated defendant Baldini on April 29, 2020, ExamWorks asked him to complete 

6

 Defendants have not objected to the court’s consideration of the documents attached to 

the complaint. 

Case 2:20-cv-00920-KJM-DB Document 66 Filed 06/11/20 Page 15 of 27
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 

16 

its standard offboarding checklist and certification form; Baldini did, certifying he had “returned 

all equipment, documents, software, hardware, and any other company property (whether 

physical, intellectual, or other) in [his] possession.” Id. ¶ 44; Bartsch Decl., Ex. H, ECF No. 4-2 

(offboarding checklist and certification form), at 228–229. 

The efforts reviewed above, supported by the record before the court, are sufficient 

at this stage to show ExamWorks has made reasonable efforts, at least, to maintain the secrecy of 

the information it claims as trade secret. 

c) Conclusion 

In sum, ExamWorks has met its burden to show the ExamWorks Trade Secret 

Information “derives independent economic value” and is subject to “reasonable efforts” to 

protect secrecy as required by statute. See Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.1(d). 

2. Misappropriation of Trade Secrets 

 The CUTSA defines misappropriation as including either the “[a]cquisition of a 

trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was 

acquired by improper means” or the “use of a trade secret of another without express or implied 

consent by a person who [] [u]sed improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret.” 

Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.1(b); see 18 U.S.C § 1839(5) (identical DTSA provision). 

 While “[m]ere possession of trade secrets by a departing employee” is not 

sufficient to establish misappropriation, Norsat Int’l, Inc. v. B.I.P. Corp., No. 12CV674-WQHNLS, 2014 WL 2453034, at *6 (S.D. Cal. May 30, 2014) (quoting FLIR Sys., Inc. v. Parrish, 174 

Cal. App. 4th 1270, 1279 (2009)), plaintiff here has met its burden to show the Former 

Employees obtained the ExamWorks Trade Secret Information for their own uses purposefully, 

without the consent of ExamWorks, and by “improper means.” The record supports the 

conclusion the Former Employees took large quantities of ExamWorks Trade Secret Information 

over time, including critical strategic information near the time of their resignations or 

terminations, with significant blocks of sensitive data sent to their private email addresses, Harris

Decl. ¶¶ 6–19 -- all in violation of company policy and their employment contracts. See Mot. 

TRO, Ex. B (“ExamWorks Confidentiality and Proprietary Rights”), ECF No. 21-1, at 60 

Case 2:20-cv-00920-KJM-DB Document 66 Filed 06/11/20 Page 16 of 27
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 

17 

(agreement signed by Girard, dated May 15, 2015, providing “All e-mail associated with an 

ExamWorks email account on the device, both outgoing and incoming, including associated email attachments, created on, transmitted to, received or printed from, or stored or recorded on the 

device (‘corporate e-mail content’) is the property of ExamWorks.”).7 

 While defendants protest that much of the information they took can be obtained 

publicly, see, e.g., Defs.’ Suppl. Br., ECF No. 41, at 6, they do not even attempt to argue that they 

in fact obtained the information from public sources. Moreover, the contents of many of 

ExamWorks’ files defy defendants’ characterization, including those entitled “Clients.xlsx,” 

“Financials by Company-Region-BusUnit – 2018 SIBTF.xlsx,” “Budget Worksheet – CA 

2019.xlsx,” “Likely Calcs – gina.xlsx” and “California WC Fee Analysis 10_17_19v10.xlsx.” 

See Nalley Decl. ¶¶ 34–39; see also id. ¶ 6 (documents represent ExamWorks’ investment of “a 

significant amount of money and sweat equity” over more than a decade, to “set it apart from 

others in the industry”). Moreover, plaintiff has shown it is likely defendants’ transmissions of 

ExamWorks’ data were not only deliberate, but the culmination of a lengthy planning effort 

conducted surreptitiously in an effort to cloak their acquisition by improper means. As plaintiff 

argues, email correspondence between and among Former Employees suggests that, as early as 

October 2018, they were making plans to launch “Project Palo Alto,” to form a new company to 

compete in the same market space ExamWorks occupies; they documented the launch plan with 

multiple emails and planning documents, in fact, preparing to use plaintiff’s business data. 

Holley Decl. ¶¶ 8, 10. They began sending themselves ExamWorks’ proprietary information 

shortly after their covert planning began. Nalley Decl. ¶ 34. Their transfer of ExamWorks’ 

7

 As relevant here, ExamWorks’ Code of Business Conduct and Ethics for its employees 

provides: “All data residing on or transmitted through the Company’s computing and 

communications facilities, including email and word processing documents, is the property of the 

Company and subject to inspection, retention and review by the Company, with or without a 

Community Member’s or third party’s knowledge, consent or approval, in accordance with 

applicable law. Personal emails, voicemails, calls or other data residing on or transmitted through 

the Company’s systems are subject to monitoring. Any misuse or suspected misuse of the 

Company’s assets must be immediately reported to your supervisor or a Compliance Officer.” 

Bartsch Decl., Ex. B (“ExamWorks’ Code of Bus. Conduct & Ethics”), ECF No. 4-3, at 199. 

Case 2:20-cv-00920-KJM-DB Document 66 Filed 06/11/20 Page 17 of 27
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 

18 

information continued until the first departures of Girard and Tejada, and even after they had 

departed while Baldini and Byrd remained at ExamWorks. Tejada’s awareness of the line she 

was walking and the importance of officially not crossing the line until the predetermined time is 

telegraphed by her making a point of clarifying, before executing her new agreement for 

employment immediately after leaving ExamWorks, that she was to perform “no newco business” 

at first. Mot. Prelim. Inj. Ex. 30 (Tejada Employment Agreement), ECF No. 52-1, at 133 (Tejada 

note asking “no newco work during this time?”). One email in particular reflects an awareness of 

the potential problems defendants’ actions posed, and their ongoing efforts to obscure them: On 

April 23, 2020, while Baldini remained employed by ExamWorks, in response to a message titled 

“Ground Work” he sent to George, Girard and Tejada, as well as Feinberg and Tuthill, George 

responded “Todd. . . you should NOT be on these emails [sic] threads. . . and certainly not be 

calling meetings or making to do lists. . . not while you are employed elsewhere. Please . . . go 

dark . . . or limit to telephone only comm. Get me?” Mot. Prelim. Inj., Ex. 24 (“April 23 Baldini 

Email”), ECF No. 52-1, at 112. Baldini acknowledged the warning later that day, “Gone Dark!!!” 

Id. 

 Not long after, upon learning that plaintiff had filed this lawsuit, George wrote 

tellingly to Girard, “you have been leaving a trail for a long time . . . and that is not good. The 

good news is there is no company . . . no nuco.” Mot. Prelim. Inj., Ex. 25 (“May 5 George 

Email”), ECF No. 52-1, at 115. But while there was no “nuco” yet, plaintiff’s complaint was 

filed during the interim period contemplated by defendants, before the unveiling of their new 

enterprise. 

 The record further discloses that the Former Employees not only improperly 

acquired ExamWorks’ Trade Secret Information for their personal use in working to develop the 

“Project Palo Alto” plan, but they maintained ExamWorks’ information without returning it upon 

their departure. It was only after plaintiff filed the complaint and moved for a restraining order 

and preliminary injunction that defendants started to take some steps to return ExamWorks’ trade 

secrets. Baldini now admits that when he completed the offboarding checklist and certification 

form upon leaving ExamWorks, despite his answers then, he in fact had not “returned all 

Case 2:20-cv-00920-KJM-DB Document 66 Filed 06/11/20 Page 18 of 27
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 

19 

equipment, documents, software, hardware, and any other company property (whether physical, 

intellectual, or other) in [his] possession.” Baldini Decl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 26-5; Bartsch Decl., Ex. H, 

(offboarding checklist and certification form), at 228–229. He also admits “he used personal 

electronic resources against ExamWorks policies.” Baldini Decl. ¶ 2 (admitting before leaving 

ExamWorks in April 29, 2020, he sent various ExamWorks’ documents to his personal email). 

Girard and Bird have made similar admissions following ExamWorks’ filing of its complaint. 

Girard Decl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 26-2 (admitting before leaving in March 13, 2020, sending various 

ExamWorks’ documents to his personal email address); Bird Decl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 26-3 (admitting 

on December 2, 2019, she emailed Girard two ExamWorks’ spreadsheets to his personal email 

address). While Ms. Bird takes the position that she only worked for Girard, doing whatever he 

asked her to, Bird Dec. ¶ 2, she did not promptly produce her personal email account to plaintiff 

as ordered by the court, see Pl.’s Suppl. Brief at 9, although her counsel reported at hearing that 

she had finally produced it shortly before. 

 The record also supports the conclusion the Former Employees not only acquired 

but also have used ExamWorks Trade Secret Information without consent. Three defendants 

aver, using identical, carefully crafted language, that each has not “used any ExamWorks 

documents since I left to compete with it or to take any opportunities from it,” Girard Decl. ¶ 2; 

Baldini Decl. ¶ 2 (same); Tejada Decl. ¶ 5. This wording does not acknowledge that acquisition 

is sufficient for misappropriation; moreover, at least two items in the record strongly support the 

conclusion defendant have in fact made unauthorized use of at least certain information, and that 

also is sufficient. See 3 Callmann on Unfair Comp., Tr. & Mono. § 14:32 (4th ed. 2019) (“It is 

not necessary to show that the defendant used the trade secret in competition with the plaintiff; 

either improper acquisition or use of the trade secret is enough to make out a case 

of misappropriation.”) (citing, inter alia, San Jose Constr., Inc. v. S.B.C.C., Inc., 155 Cal. App. 

4th 1528, 1544 (2007) (“[U]nder the UTSA ‘misappropriation’ can occur through 

improper acquisition of a trade secret, not only through use.” (emphasis in original))). One is 

Girard’s March 19 email specifically referencing “the spreadsheet we used to blast our message 

yesterday,” attaching a document bearing the title of an ExamWorks’ proprietary list. Pl.’s Suppl. 

Case 2:20-cv-00920-KJM-DB Document 66 Filed 06/11/20 Page 19 of 27
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 

20 

Br. at 2. Girard’s saying now he was confused, and providing a copy of a template for the letter 

he says was sent, does not explain away his attaching a link to the proprietary spreadsheet to his 

message. The second is another email Girard sent on April 28 to Tejada, saying “I am looking for 

the short list of SIBTF doctors to recruit.” Mot. Prelim. Inj., Ex. 26, ECF No. 52-1 (“April 28 

Girard Email”), at 118, to which Tejada responded by sending him ExamWorks’ SIBTF 

spreadsheet. If there is some truth to defendants’ saying they have not competed directly with 

ExamWorks or taken opportunities from it, their careful parsing may simply omit the word “yet.” 

 Taking into account all of this information of record, the court concludes that, at 

this early stage, ExamWorks has shown a likelihood of success on the misappropriation element 

of its trade secrets claims. 

B. Irreparable Harm 

The court turns to whether ExamWorks has met its burden to demonstrate it will 

suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. “An 

irreparable harm is one that cannot be redressed by a legal or equitable remedy following trial.” 

Optinrealbig.com, LLC v. Ironport Sys., Inc., 323 F. Supp. 2d 1037, 1050 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (citing 

Public Util. Comm’n v. FERC, 814 F.2d 560, 562 (9th Cir. 1987)). Ordinarily, economic injury is 

not irreparable because monetary damages are an adequate remedy. Rent–A–Center, Inc. v. 

Canyon Television & Appliance Rental, Inc., 944 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1991). However, 

“intangible injuries, such as damage to ongoing recruitment efforts and goodwill, qualify as 

irreparable harm.” Id.; see also Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 

841 (9th Cir. 2001) (evidence of threatened loss of prospective customers or goodwill supports 

irreparable harm finding). Although “loss of control over business reputation and damage to 

goodwill could constitute irreparable harm,” a court’s finding of such harm cannot be “grounded 

in platitudes rather than evidence.” Herb Reed Enters., LLC v. Fla. Entm’t Mgmt., Inc., 736 F.3d 

1239, 1250 (9th Cir. 2013). A plaintiff must “demonstrate a likelihood of irreparable injury—not 

just a possibility—in order to obtain preliminary relief,” Winter, 555 U.S. at 21.8

8

 Although establishing a likelihood of success in one type of intellectual property case, 

namely a trademark infringement action, may once have created a presumption of irreparable 

Case 2:20-cv-00920-KJM-DB Document 66 Filed 06/11/20 Page 20 of 27
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 

21 

The court finds ExamWorks has met its burden of showing a likelihood of 

irreparable harm by pointing to the threatened loss of prospective customers posed by defendants’ 

actions, as well as the threat to ExamWorks’ ongoing business recruitment efforts. 

Defendants’ deep familiarity with ExamWorks’ proprietary information and their 

detailed advance planning to enter the same “med-legal” market to compete with ExamWorks—

after a brief, orchestrated cooling-off period for the sake of optics—supports the conclusion they 

cannot solicit the persons and companies on ExamWorks’ proprietary lists without 

misappropriating ExamWorks’ trade secrets. As noted above, those lists are not merely copies of 

publicly available lists, but lists developed through ExamWorks’ significant efforts over time. 

Morlife, 56 Cal. App. 4th at 1521 (“[W]here the employer has expended time and effort 

identifying customers with particular needs or characteristics, courts will prohibit former 

employees from using this information to capture a share of the market.”); id. at 1528–29; see 

also MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 515, 520 (9th Cir. 1993) (district 

court enjoined defendants “from soliciting any [plaintiff] computer maintenance customer and 

from maintaining any contract with any former [plaintiff] computer maintenance customer where 

knowledge of any such customers was obtained by [defendant] during his employment with 

[plaintiff]”; injunction upheld to extent it properly enjoined customer solicitation). This 

harm, see Herb Reed Enterprises, LLC, 736 F.3d at 1250–51, recent Ninth Circuit cases have 

called into question whether this presumption is consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in 

eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388, 394 (2006). See 7-Eleven, Inc. v. Dhaliwal, No. 

12-CV-02276-KJM-GGH, 2012 WL 5880462, at *6–7 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2012) (citing eBay 

Inc., LLC, 547 U.S. at 394; Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 

873, 877 (9th Cir. 2009); Flexible Lifeline Sys., Inc. v. Precision Lift, Inc., 654 F.3d 989, 998 (9th 

Cir. 2011)). While the Ninth Circuit has yet to directly address the impact of eBay on courts’ 

power to presume irreparable harm in trade secrets cases in particular, this court has joined those 

district courts who decline to rely on a presumption in determining irreparable harm. See Cutera, 

Inc. v. Lutronic Aesthetics, Inc., No. 2:20-CV-00235-KJM-DB, 2020 WL 1234551, at *7 (E.D. 

Cal. Mar. 13, 2020); see also V’Guara Inc. v. Dec, 925 F. Supp. 2d 1120, 1126 (D. Nev. 2013) 

(citing Flexible Lifeline Systems in declining to presume irreparable harm in trade secrets case); 

but see Comet Techs. United States of Am. Inc. v. Beuerman, No. 18-CV-01441-LHK, 2018 WL 

1990226, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2018) (citing pre-Flexible Lifeline Systems district court 

decisions for proposition that courts in that district presume plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm 

if proprietary information is misappropriated).

Case 2:20-cv-00920-KJM-DB Document 66 Filed 06/11/20 Page 21 of 27
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 

22 

conclusion extends to all of ExamWorks’ curated lists, including the client list attached to 

Girard’s March 19 email and the SIBTF list Tejada emailed to Girard on April 28, 2020. 

Defendants’ actions also have unfairly threatened ExamWorks’ ability to recruit 

new business through the use of its proprietary information. Here again, Girard’s April 28 email 

to Tejada provides support for this conclusion, in that Girard expressly said he was “looking for 

the short list of SIBTF doctors to recruit.” April 28 Girard Email at 118. Also, although Tejada 

says she sent the “Brown & Todoroff.xlsx” list to her personal email address on January 16 to 

make sure she had a copy in the event of a bad internet connection, plaintiffs point to the 

highlighting of unassigned cases on that list that allows for easy identification and poaching by a 

competitor. Nalley Decl. ¶¶ 28–29, 31–34, 37–39. 

Defendants would have the court accept that any threat they pose to ExamWorks is 

now a thing of the past. They take the position that since their resignations and terminations, the 

only ExamWorks document they have accessed is a list identified as “Clients.xlsx,” and insist it 

contains only publicly available information. Defs.’ Suppl. Br. at 3. But again, the list compiled 

by ExamWorks identifies applicant attorneys comprising 124,756 unique entries with detailed 

contact information. Compl. ¶ 67; Mot. TRO, Ex. J (Clients.xlsx), ECF No. 28-1 (part 2), at 11–

18 (NATIVE-Clients) (sealed); id., ECF No. 28-3 (part 4), at 1–912 (NATIVE-Doctors) (sealed). 

Defendants further argue that even if this list is a trade secret, it does not support an injunction in 

this case, as there is no evidence that any applicant attorneys the Former Employees may have 

solicited have actually done business with them. Defs.’ Suppl. Br. at 3. 

Defendants’ argument does not grapple with the fact Former Employees were in 

the process of forming their new company although not yet launched; it also does not hold up in 

light of the totality of the record before the court reviewed above. The “Clients.xlsx” list is not 

the only list defendants misappropriated and used without consent. While defendants have 

conceded the error of certain of their ways, they have not provided full disavowals of their plan to 

implement Project Palo Alto by launching a business to unfairly compete with ExamWorks. 

Defendants have dawdled in turning over all of the discovery ordered by the court. May 22 Hr’g 

Tr., ECF No. 38, at 4:1–4 (plaintiff’s counsel’s unrebutted representation that after signing 

Case 2:20-cv-00920-KJM-DB Document 66 Filed 06/11/20 Page 22 of 27
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 

23 

declaration saying she turned everything over, Tejada still had hard copy documents at home); id.

at 4:4–7 (counsel also saying Tejada “has not been able to provide” plaintiff with password for 

Dropbox account Girard instructed her to place documents in). As noted, Ms. Bird produced her 

email account only a few days before the court’s June 3 hearing, such that plaintiff had not had an 

opportunity to review it. This behavior raises a red flag and at this point allows the drawing of 

adverse inferences. Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. Richards, 541 F.3d 903, 911 (9th Cir. 2008) 

(district court has discretion to draw adverse inference when deprived of source of information). 

Defendants also appear to have been slow to otherwise comply with the court’s orders. Id. at 6:1–

3 (counsel representing Tejada testified at deposition she was still contacting persons she worked 

with at ExamWorks after entry of TRO). 

The court finds ExamWorks has met its burden to show it is likely to suffer irreparable 

harm without a preliminary injunction. 

C. Balance of Equities 

The balance of equities also tips in ExamWorks’ favor. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. An 

injunction will make clear to the Former Employees, as appears necessary, that they cannot 

further use any of ExamWorks Trade Secret Information and minimize the competitive harm 

ExamWorks might otherwise suffer as a result. An injunction tailored to the circumstances of 

this case will merely prevent Former Employees from engaging in unlawful acts. Here in 

particular, the circumstances support an injunction restraining defendants from conducting 

business with any individual or entity that did business with ExamWorks before defendants 

stopped working there, to the extent those individuals or entities are identified in the bundle of 

trade secret materials defendants misappropriated. As in Morlife, defendants remain free to 

engage in their professions and solicit customers whose identities, with all of the associated 

strategic information, are not ExamWorks’ trade secrets. 56 Cal. App. 4th 1514 at 1528–29. 

While defendants complain that such an injunction is overbroad and poses great harm to them, 

their declarations supporting this position are generalized without providing meaningful detail 

addressing the analysis called for here. Girard Decl. ¶ 7; Bird Decl. ¶ 5; Tejada Decl. ¶ 7; Baldini 

Case 2:20-cv-00920-KJM-DB Document 66 Filed 06/11/20 Page 23 of 27
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 

24 

Decl. ¶ 5. Moreover, that they have not sought a bond as a condition of an injunction’s issuing 

suggests their harm is overstated. 

 At this stage and on this record, the well-supported likely risk of competitive harm 

to ExamWorks from the Former Employee’s misappropriation of the ExamWorks Trade Secrets 

Information outweighs the speculative risk to the Former Employees. The balance of equities tips 

in ExamWorks’ favor. 

D. Public Interest 

“In exercising their sound discretion, courts of equity should pay particular regard to the 

public consequences in employing the extraordinary remedy of injunction.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 

24 (quoting Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 312 (1982)). As noted above, trade 

secret cases involving former employees traditionally often invoke the two competing public 

interests of trade secret protection and employee mobility. Pyro Spectaculars, 861 F. Supp. 2d at 

1092–93; see also Morlife, 56 Cal. App. 4th at 1520. 

Here, the court has found ExamWorks has shown a likelihood of success on the 

merits of its trade secrets claims, a likelihood of irreparable harm if an injunction is not granted 

and that the balance of equities tips in ExamWorks’ favor. Where the requested injunction will 

restrain only the Former Employees’ unlawful use of ExamWorks’ trade secrets, the public’s 

interest in these circumstances favors issuance of the injunction. See Pyro Spectaculars, 861 F. 

Supp. 2d at 1093 (public interest supported injunction “specifically focused on preventing misuse 

of PSI’s trade secrets to solicit PSI’s customers” where plaintiff satisfied three other preliminary 

injunction requirements); Fid. Brokerage Servs. LLC v. McNamara, No. 11 CV 1092 MMA 

RBB, 2011 WL 2117546, at *8 (S.D. Cal. May 27, 2011) (“[An] injunction does not prohibit 

defendants from engaging in lawful conduct to service their new and existing clients. Rather, it 

narrowly restricts the unlawful solicitation of plaintiff’s clientele through use of plaintiff’s trade 

secret information.”). 

IV. DISCOVERY COSTS 

 Defendants argue they cannot finance use of an expert by ExamWorks with an 

hourly rate of $550, Opp’n at 7, and say costs of the forensic expert’s review of the expedited 

Case 2:20-cv-00920-KJM-DB Document 66 Filed 06/11/20 Page 24 of 27
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 

25 

discovery should be borne entirely by ExamWorks; alternately, they say the individual defendants 

should pay only for the collection and imaging of their devices and the removal of any 

ExamWorks’ information from the devices. Opp’n at 24. Under federal discovery rules, “the 

presumption is that the responding party must bear the expense of complying with discovery 

requests, but [] may invoke the district court’s discretion under Rule 26(c) to grant orders 

protecting him from ‘undue burden or expense.’” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 

340, 358 (1978). In exercising this discretion, the court must decide “whether to leave the cost of 

complying with its order where it falls, on the defendant, or place it on the party that benefits, the 

representative plaintiff.” Id. “[T]he test in this respect normally should be whether the cost is 

substantial . . . in relation to ability to pay.” Id. at 361–62. 

 Defendants argue the “Individual Defendants are being financially crushed by this 

litigation, and cannot finance use of an expert by ExamWorks.” Opp’n at 7. Defendants’ 

declarations note their personal financial obligations. Girard Decl. ¶ 7 (financial responsibilities 

for assisted living costs for mother, health insurance gap, daughter’s student loans, and low equity 

in home due to COVID-19); Bird Decl. ¶ 5 (unemployed and not paying for attorney in this 

litigation); Tejada Decl. ¶ 7 (stating she is “not paying for, nor do I have the resources to pay for, 

attorney’s fees or the cost of this litigation,” without further explanation); Baldini Decl. ¶ 5 (“My 

personal/financial wealth is basically month to month. I support a full family with two out of 

state college students and extensive student loans.”). The court is not unsympathetic to such 

obligations, but defendants do not squarely address their overall ability to pay. Recognizing early 

on in their planning of “Project Palo Alto” the likelihood of an “EW reaction” to their plans at 

some point, it appears Girard and Baldini each contemplated investing significant amounts 

monthly in their new business. Holley Decl., Ex. E, ECF 21-2, at 19-20 (identifying “Expected 

EW reaction in each scenario” on Project Palo Alto topic outline; estimating “all in average of 

$28K per person per mo.”). And Bird and Tejada signal now that someone else is covering any 

litigation costs incurred on their behalf, because they are not. 

 Given that defendants have conceded improperly taking ExamWorks’ trade secrets 

and the court has found they did so intentionally, they have not overcome the presumption that as 

Case 2:20-cv-00920-KJM-DB Document 66 Filed 06/11/20 Page 25 of 27
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 

26 

the responding party they must bear the expense of discovery, including the costs of the forensic 

expert. This determination, however, does not preclude defendants’ seeking to overcome the 

presumption through discovery motion practice before the assigned magistrate judge. 

V. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons EXPLAINED above, the court CONFIRMS its grant of 

ExamWorks’ motion for a preliminary injunction order against defendants on the terms the court 

provided in its June 3, 2020 order, ECF No. 45: 

 1. Defendants are ordered to continue taking all steps to preserve evidence relevant to 

the allegations of the complaint and/or their employment with ExamWorks, including, but not 

limited to, any email or cloud storage accounts, computers, servers, USB thumb drives, and any 

other electronic devices that contain relevant electronic evidence. 

2. Defendants are further ordered, at their own expense, to continue making any 

electronic device or account that contains relevant electronic evidence available immediately to a 

neutral and mutually agreed-upon third-party forensic expert (the “Forensic Expert”) in order to 

create a forensically sound image of said device, or, in the alternative, turn over the actual 

electronic device to the Forensic Expert. 

3. Defendants and all persons in active concert or participation with them are hereby 

enjoined from acquiring, accessing, disclosing, or using, or attempting to acquire, access, 

disclosure, or use any trade secrets or confidential information of ExamWorks, or derivatives 

thereof, as described in the complaint in this action, including, but not limited to, any documents 

that discuss, forward, reference, or incorporate the trade secrets or confidential information of 

ExamWorks. For purposes of this order, the legal definition of “trade secret” is all nonpublic 

“forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering 

information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, 

prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes, whether tangible or 

intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, 

graphically, photographically, or in writing.” See 18 U.S.C. § 1839(3). For purposes of this 

///// 

Case 2:20-cv-00920-KJM-DB Document 66 Filed 06/11/20 Page 26 of 27
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 

27 

order, “confidential information” means all other information belonging to or otherwise relating 

to the business of ExamWorks or its affiliates which is not generally known. 

4. Defendants and all persons in active concert or participation with them are ordered 

to continue returning, without delay, all ExamWorks trade secrets and confidential information in 

their possession, custody, or control to the office of counsel for ExamWorks (Catherine Lui, 

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, 400 Capitol Mall # 3000, Sacramento, CA 95814) to the 

extent there are not materials already turned over to the Forensic Expert. 

5. Defendants are ordered, at their own expense, to work with the Forensic Expert to 

permanently and forensically remove from all of their computers, servers, and other electronic 

devices any trade secrets or confidential information of ExamWorks, or derivatives thereof, 

including, but not limited to, any documents that discuss, forward, reference, or incorporate the 

trade secrets or confidential information of ExamWorks, as defined in paragraph 3 above. 

6. Defendants are hereby enjoined from conducting business with any individual or 

entity that did business with ExamWorks before defendants stopped working there, to the extent 

those individuals or entities are identified in the bundle of trade secret materials misappropriated 

by defendants, including, without limitation, curated lists identifying ExamWorks’ clients, 

medical providers, and doctors; provided, however, that defendants are not precluded from 

lawfully announcing their new employment as long as any announcement does not make use of 

plaintiff’s trade secrets. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 11, 2020. 

Case 2:20-cv-00920-KJM-DB Document 66 Filed 06/11/20 Page 27 of 27