Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03072/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03072-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Property

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WORLD COURIER, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DONEEN BARONE, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-03072 TEH

ORDER RE PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION

This matter came before the Court on March 12, 2007, on Plaintiff World Courier,

Inc.’s (“Plaintiff’s”) Motion for Preliminary Injunction. In particular, Plaintiff sought to

expand upon injunctive relief – originally stipulated to by the parties in May 2006 – in

light of facts revealed during recent discovery. At the close of the hearing, the Court

informed the parties that it intended to grant additional injunctive relief but gave counsel

the opportunity to informally resolve the exact scope and terms of such relief.

Counsel subsequently agreed to the scope and terms of such additional relief except for

two relatively minor issues which they ask the Court to resolve. See March 19, 2007

letter from Thomas Chow (filed March 19, 2007, Docket No. 97).

Case 3:06-cv-03072-TEH Document 98 Filed 03/29/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

In general, the parties have agreed that the individual defendants shall be

precluded, for a period of 11 months, from soliciting business from the 57 entities

identified in Exhibit A to the March 19, 2007 letter. They further agree that the

corporate Defendant, Marken, shall be precluded from soliciting business from the West

Coast offices of 54 of the 57entitities identified in Exhibit A. The parties further agree

that Marken may solicit business from the West Coast offices of Sony Pictures. See

March 19, 2007 letter at 1-2. The only points of disagreement are whether (1) Marken

should also be allowed to solicit business from the West Coast offices of Quest and

Novartis, and (2) whether the duration of the injunction against Marken should be four or

six months. Id. 

 With respect to the first issue, the Court concludes that Quest and Novartis

should be excluded from the injunction given that Marken had a preexisting business

relationship with these two entities. With respect to the second issue, the Court

concludes that the agreed upon relief should extend for a period of six months given

Plaintiff’s strong evidentiary showing in support of its motion.

 Indeed, as this Court previously indicated at the hearing, the Court finds that

Defendants’ version of the events at issue are not credible, and that the record, as it

currently exists, strongly indicates that the individual Defendants planned, along with

Marken, to utilize confidential data to solicit Plaintiff’s customers. Indeed, the evidence

indicates that Defendants were willing to go to considerable lengths in furtherance of this

plan. In short, a clear pattern of improper behavior amply supports the additional

protection sought by Plaintiff and provided for by this Order. Notably, Defendants have

agreed to all of the relief ordered below except for the fifth and sixth months of the

injunction governing Marken.

Case 3:06-cv-03072-TEH Document 98 Filed 03/29/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Counsel represented at the hearing that the Defendant Sumitra Nadarajah is no

longer employed with Marken.

3

Accordingly, and good cause appearing, it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. As to Defendants Doneen Barone (“Barone”) and Jerra Langit (“Langit”),1

there will be no solicitation, contact, or other involvement of any kind related to any

entity listed on Exhibit A to the letter of March 19, 2007 (“Exhibit A”) (Docket No. 97)

for a period of 11 months from the date of this Order. Without limiting the generality of

the foregoing, Barone and Langit may not be involved in establishing any pricing with

respect to any of those customers. Any inquiries by any customers identified on Exhibit

A directed to Barone and Langit must be directed to someone else at Marken. Any such

inquiry initiated by a customer shall not be deemed a prohibited contact or involvement,

provided it is limited to redirecting the inquiry and no other involvement. 

2. With respect to Marken, for a period of 6 months from the date of this Order

no one at Marken will solicit business from a California, Oregon or Washington office of

any entity list on Exhibit A, with the exception of Quest, Novartis and Sony Pictures. 

With the exception of the restrictions regarding the activities of Barone and Langit set

forth above, there shall be no restrictions on Marken’s ability to continue to service or to

respond to inquiries from customers wherever located during the period of restriction.

A separate order on Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation will be

forthcoming.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 29, 2007 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT

JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-03072-TEH Document 98 Filed 03/29/07 Page 3 of 3