United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on the Renewed Emergency Motion of
Plaintiff for a temporary restraining order [Doc. No. 22]. A
hearing on the motion was held on August 29, 2017, at which
counsel for the parties appeared. For the following reasons,
the motion will be denied.
August 10, 2017, the Court held a hearing on the ex
parte relief sought by the Plaintiff. Defendant appeared
in person and through counsel. The Court heard argument
regarding the requested seizure of the electronic devices,
but then adjourned for lunch before arguments regarding the
balance of the requested relief could be heard.
Court’s urging, counsel for the parties consulted
during the lunch recess, and agreed to a procedure whereby
Defendant would voluntarily make electronic devices available
to a third party neutral for inspection and removal of any
alleged trade secrets, would agree not to use any of
Plaintiff’s alleged trade secrets during the interim,
and would agree not to market or sell his book until such
time as the copyright issue was resolved.
announced this agreement to the Court at the conclusion of
the lunch recess before hearing oral argument on
Plaintiff’s ex parte motion for a temporary
restraining order and motion for ex parte
impoundment. The Court took the matter under submission while
the Parties endeavored to reduce their agreement to an agreed
to the initial hearing, the parties met and attempted to
memorialize their agreement. Negotiations broke down based on
the method for such memorialization. Plaintiff seeks a Rule
65 restraining order; Defendant seeks a Rule 26 protective
determining whether to issue a TRO, the Court must consider
the following four factors: (1) the threat of irreparable
harm to the movants; (2) the balance between this harm and
the injury that granting the injunction will inflict on other
parties litigant; (3) the probability that movants will
succeed on the merits; and (4) the public interest.
Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d
109, 113 (8th Cir. 1981) (en banc); see also Home
Instead, Inc. v. Florance, 721 F.3d 494, 497 (8th Cir.
2013). The party requesting injunctive relief bears the
“complete burden” of proving that an injunction
should be granted. Gelco Corp. v. Coniston Partners,
811 F.2d 414, 418 (8th Cir. 1987).
Harm to Plaintiff Absent an Injunction
demonstrate irreparable harm, a party must show that the harm
is certain and great and of such imminence that there is a
clear and present need for equitable relief.” Novus
Franchising, Inc. v. Dawson, 725 F.3d 885, 895 (8th Cir.
2013). “Courts generally hold that the disclosure of
confidential information such as customer information and
business strategy will result in irreparable harm to the
plaintiff.” Experitec, Inv. v. Stachowski,
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185282, at *7 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 30, 2014).
counters this by his agreement to enter into a protective
order which would preclude him from disclosing any of
Plaintiff’s strategies and asserted trade secrets. Rule
In General. A party or any person from whom
discovery is sought may move for a protective order in the
court where the action is pending -- or as an alternative on
matters relating to a deposition, in the court for the
district where the deposition will be taken. The motion must
include a certification that the movant has in good faith
conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties
in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action. The
court may, for good cause, issue an order ...