Opinion ID: 854323
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Disservice to the public interest

Text: Finally, VHS argues that the injunction disserves the public interest by barring public access to a supplement with significant potential health benefits and prohibiting VHS from turning a profit that it could use for further health research. But the district court found that the public had a greater interest in the development of “a historical scientific breakthrough” if Dr. Daniels had the chance to substantiate his early research. The odds of this breakthrough, in the district court’s opinion, would be seriously harmed if VHS’s sale of Aterosil hurt DHS’s funding chances. The district court also found that the public is served when the law is followed. It did not err by placing more weight on these latter public interests than on VHS’s proffered public interests. The district court did not clearly err in any of its factual determinations, and it correctly applied the legal standard for issuance of a preliminary injunction to those facts. Therefore, it did not abuse its discretion in granting the injunction. 10 Case: 12-20599 Document: 00512164302 Page: 11 Date Filed: 03/05/2013 No. 12-20599 II. The scope of the district court’s preliminary injunction VHS also argues that the preliminary injunction is overbroad because it prohibits “the use, dissemination, destroying, selling, conveying, or distributing of any information and/or intellectual property that [VHS] and operatives received from [DHS].” (Emphasis added.) It also objects that enjoining it “from marketing, selling, advertising, distributing, or conveying any product bearing the word ‘Provasca’ or derivatives of that term; or product based on the science received and reviewed” is too broad. VHS points out that this language would prohibit it from disseminating copies of public third-party journal articles that Dr. Daniels included when he compiled The Path to Provasca. In addition, VHS alleges that the injunction bars it from marketing or selling drugs unrelated to Provasca, such as cholesterol-lowering medications, if they are nevertheless based on “the science received and reviewed” from DHS on general cardiovascular health. The district court’s order granting the injunction must “state its terms specifically” and “describe in reasonable detail” the conduct restrained or required. FED. R. CIV. P. 65(d). Furthermore, the court “must narrowly tailor an injunction to remedy the specific action which gives rise to the order.” John Doe #1 v. Veneman, 380 F.3d 807, 818 (5th Cir. 2004). The issue of whether the injunction complies with Rule 65 presents a close question. Even though VHS asked the district court to clarify the injunction, VHS has never indicated its desire to disseminate third-party journal articles or market cholesterol drugs. As the Supreme Court has noted, If defendants enter upon transactions which raise doubts as to the applicability of the injunction, they may petition the court granting it for a modification or construction of the order. While such relief would be in the sound discretion of the court, we think courts would not be apt to withhold a clarification in the light of a concrete situation that left parties . . . in the dark as to their duty toward the court. 11 Case: 12-20599 Document: 00512164302 Page: 12 Date Filed: 03/05/2013 No. 12-20599 Regal Knitwear Co. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 9, 15 (1945) (emphasis added); cf. Gulf King Shrimp Co. v. Wirtz, 407 F.2d 508, 517 (5th Cir. 1969) (“If for some reason Gulf King had doubts about the meaning of any part of the injunction, it could have sought district court clarification.”). VHS has not alleged an intent to enter into such transactions. And it is impossible for courts to craft injunctions that address all hypotheticals.1 Nevertheless, because the injunction is quite broad relative to the “reasonably detailed and sufficiently specific to the underlying action” standard, we instruct the district court on remand to try to narrow the scope of its injunction.