Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02339/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02339-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
CBR Systems Incorporated
Counter Defendant
Mary Tompkins
Counter Claimant

Document Text:

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

CBR Systems Incorporated, a California 

corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Mary Tompkins, an individual, 

Defendant.

No.CV11-2339 PHX DGC

ORDER 

 On January 27, 2012, the Court held a hearing on Defendant’s motion to dismiss 

(Doc. 7), Plaintiff’s application for a TRO (Doc. 11), and Plaintiff’s motion for expedited 

discovery (Doc. 12). For reasons stated in detail on the record, the Court denied 

Defendant’s motion to dismiss. The Court took under advisement Plaintiff’s request for a 

TRO and expedited discovery. For reasons that follow, the Court will deny the TRO 

application, but permit discovery in the case to begin immediately. 

 During oral argument, Plaintiff’s counsel asked the Court to enjoin three specific 

actions: (1) Defendant’s alleged practice of encouraging Plaintiff’s medical referrers to 

discard Plaintiff’s marketing materials; (2) Defendant’s alleged practice of giving gift 

cards to potential medical referrers; and (3) Defendant’s visiting of any medical referrer 

she serviced while employed at Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s counsel asked the Court to enjoin 

these activities under Plaintiff’s claims for unfair competition, tortuous interference with 

business expectancies, and breach of contract. 

 Plaintiff has provided no basis for the Court to conclude that Defendant is 

Case 2:11-cv-02339-DGC Document 15 Filed 01/30/12 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

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 

engaging in unfair competition, committing tortuous conduct, or breaching contracts by 

encouraging potential medical referrers to use CORD:USE marketing material rather than 

Plaintiff’s marketing material, or in offering gift cards to potential medical referrers. 

Plaintiff’s counsel failed to identify why the suggestion that a medical referrer change 

marketing materials is improper or illegal. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that Defendant is 

obtaining restricted patient information in violation of federal law through the offering of 

gift cards, but Plaintiff has provided no evidence to support that allegation with respect to 

Defendant’s current activities. 

 The Court also concludes that Plaintiff has not provided a sufficient basis for the 

Court to enjoin Defendant from calling on medical referrers she serviced while employed 

by Plaintiff. As noted during the hearing, the Court concludes that California law will 

govern Defendant’s employment contracts with Plaintiff. Defendant asserts, and Plaintiff 

does not disagree, that California law invalidates covenants prohibiting a former 

employee from calling on former customers. The basis for Plaintiff’s request for 

injunctive relief, therefore, is not the mere fact that Defendant is calling on entities she 

serviced while employed by Plaintiff, but the claim that Defendant is using Plaintiff’s 

confidential and protected information in doing so. The Court concludes, however, that 

Plaintiff has not presented evidence to support this argument. The affidavits attached to 

Plaintiff’s TRO application simply allege that Defendant has been contacting medical 

referrers she serviced while at Plaintiff. Doc. 11-1 at 12, 16. The declarations provide no 

basis for concluding that Defendant has used confidential or proprietary information in 

doing so. Ms. Sherman’s declaration provides a detailed description of the Siebel 

database maintained by Plaintiff, but provides no information to suggest that Defendant 

has improperly accessed the database. Ms. Sherman does assert her “belief” that 

Defendant is using confidential information, but provides no factual basis on which the 

Court can rely. Although it is true that Defendant acquired information about Plaintiff’s 

most effective medical referrers while employed at Plaintiff, the Court cannot conclude 

from the mere fact that she has called on these medical referrers that Defendant is 

Case 2:11-cv-02339-DGC Document 15 Filed 01/30/12 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

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 

improperly using Plaintiff’s confidential information. 

 For these reasons, Plaintiff has not shown that it is likely to succeed on the merits 

of its argument that Defendant is engaging in unfair competition, tortuously interfering 

with business expectancies, or breaching contracts by encouraging Plaintiff’s medical 

referrers to use CORD:USE marketing materials rather than Plaintiff’s marketing 

materials, by using gift cards in her solicitation of business, or by calling on Plaintiff’s 

medical referrers. Because Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits 

of these claims, the Court concludes that it is not entitled to temporary injunctive relief. 

See Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008) (to 

obtain preliminary injunctive relief, a plaintiff must show that it is likely to succeed on 

the merits). 

 The Court recognizes that Plaintiff has a legitimate interest in its existing base of 

medical referrers. As a result, the Court waives the requirement of Rule 26(d)(1). The 

parties need not wait until after they have conferred under Rule 26(f) before commencing 

discovery. 

IT IS ORDERED:

 1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 7) is denied. 

 2. Plaintiff’s application for a temporary restraining order (Doc. 11) is denied. 

3. Plaintiff’s motion to expedite discovery (Doc. 12) is granted in part as 

described above. 

 4. The Court will set a case management conference by separate order. 

 Dated this 30th day of January, 2012. 

Case 2:11-cv-02339-DGC Document 15 Filed 01/30/12 Page 3 of 3