United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Michael A. Shipp United States district Judge.
matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff Sandhills
Global, Inc.'s ("Plaintiff') Motion for a
Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction
("Motion"). (ECF No. 3.) Defendants Lawrence
Garafola, Sr.; Lawrence Garafola, Jr.; Marlene Greene;
Bidpath, Inc.; and Bidfacts, LLC (collectively,
"Defendants") have not yet replied. The Court has
carefully considered Plaintiffs submission and decides the
matter without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule
78.1. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies
Plaintiffs motion for temporary restraints. The Court,
however, orders expedited discovery.
injunctive relief is an 'extraordinary remedy, which
should be granted only in limited circumstances.'"
Fetring Pharms., Inc. v. Watson Pharms., Inc., 765
F.3d 205, 210 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Novartis Consumer
Health, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson-Merck Consumer Pharms.
Co., 290 F.3d 578, 586 (3d Cir. 2002)). Plaintiff bears
the burden of establishing it is "likely to succeed on
the merits . . . likely to suffer irreparable harm in the
absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities
tips in [its] favor, and that an injunction is in the public
interest." Winter v. NRDC, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20
(2008) (citations omitted). "A plaintiffs failure to
establish any element in its favor renders a preliminary
injunction inappropriate." Nutrasweet Co. v. VitMar
Enters., 176F.3d 151, 153 (3d Cir. 1999).
movant has the burden of establishing a "clear showing
of immediate irreparable injury," Louis v.
Bledsoe, 438 Fed.Appx. 129, 131 (3d Cir. 2011) (citation
omitted), and "[establishing a risk of irreparable harm
is not enough," ECRI v. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 809
F.2d 223, 226 (3d Cir. 1987). "[T]he injury created by a
failure to issue the requested injunction must be of a
peculiar nature, so that compensation in money cannot atone
for it." Acierno v. New Castle Cty., 40 F.3d
645, 653 (3d Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). "[T]he
claimed injury cannot merely be possible, speculative, or
remote." Laidlaw, Inc. v. Student Transp. of
Am., 20 F.Supp.2d 727, 766 (D.N.J. 1998) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
instant Motion, Plaintiff, in a single paragraph and without
citation to any relevant legal authority, argues that it will
suffer irreparable harm in the form of loss of goodwill and
industry reputation. Although loss of goodwill and industry
reputation could suffice to demonstrate irreparable harm,
see, e.g. ACE Am. Ins. Co. v. Wachovia Ins. Agency,
No. 08-4369, 2008 WL 4165746, at *6 (D.N.J. Sept. 4, 2008),
here, Plaintiff's Motion and accompanying Complaint
(Compl., ECF No. 1) fail to explain what goodwill or harm to
industry reputation it would suffer in the absence of an
injunction. Such unsupported and conclusory
allegations fail to establish Plaintiff is entitled to the
extraordinary relief it seeks. See Ferring Pharms.,
Inc., 765 F.3d at 210. Moreover, Plaintiff fails to
establish that the irreparable harm it allegedly faces is
more than merely speculative. See, e.g., Moneyham v.
Ebbert, 123 F. App'x 89, 92 (3d Cir. 2018)
("The irreparable harm alleged must be actual and
imminent, not merely speculative."); see also
Cont'l Grp., Inc. v. Amoco Chem. Corp., 614 F.2d
351, 359 (3d Cir. 1980) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted) ("[Injunctions will not be issued
merely to allay the fears and apprehensions or to soothe the
anxieties of the parties."). The Court, accordingly,
finds Plaintiff failed to establish it will suffer
irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction.
Court also notes that Plaintiff s Motion makes no reference
to a preliminary injunction bond, and failure to require such
a bond can be reversible error. See Hoxworth v. Blinder,
Robinson & Co., Inc., 903 F.2d 186, 210 (3d Cir.
1990). Notwithstanding that oversight, the Court finds
Plaintiff failed to demonstrate it is entitled to emergent
relief, as required under Local Civil Rule 65.1(a).
Court, however, finds good cause to allow expedited
discovery. "[E]xpedited discovery is particularly
appropriate when a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief because
of the expedited nature of injunctive proceedings."
Phila. Newspapers v. Gannett Satellite Info.
Network, No. 98-2782, 1998 WL 404820, at *2 (E.D. Pa.
July 15, 1998) (quoting Ellsworth Assocs., Inc. v. United
States, 917 F.Supp. 841, 844 (D.D.C. 1996)). The Court
finds Plaintiffs allegation that Lawrence Garafola, Jr. has
recently "mass delete[d]" infonnation from his
computer compelling. (Pl.'s Appl. 5.) Although Plaintiff
concedes that the results of a forensic analysis are ongoing,
and Plaintiffs supporting affidavit does not reference what
specifically was deleted, the Court finds expedited discovery
in this matter appropriate. Accordingly, IT IS on this 30J!L
day of August 2019, ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (ECF
No. 3) is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff is entitled to expedited discovery.
3. By September 30, 2019, the parties must submit a joi nt
proposed scheduling order to the Honorable Tonianne J.
Bongiovanni, U.S.M.J. If the parties are unable to agree to a
joint proposed scheduling order, by September 30, 2019, the
parties must submit separate proposed scheduling
 Because the Court finds Plaintiff
failed to establish irreparable harm, the Court does not
address the remaining preliminary injunction factors.
 Plaintiff acknowledges that its claims
for lost profits could be compensated monetarily.
(Id.) See Laidlaw, Inc., 20 ...