United States District Court, D. New Jersey
MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC. UNITED STATES, Plaintiff,
PARKER SHI, Defendant.
Michael A. Shipp United States District Judge
matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff McKinsey &
Company, Inc. United States's (''Plaintiff')
Motion for Entry of an Order to Show Cause with Temporary
Restraints and for Expedited Discovery pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and Local Civil Rule 65.1. (ECF
No. 1.) Plaintiff attempted to serve Defendant via his
attorney who represents him in a separate civil action in New
Jersey Superior Court; Defendant's attorney advised that
he was not authorized to accept service, and
Plaintiff is attempting service by alternate means.
(Correspondence, ECF No. 5.) The Court has considered the
Verified Complaint (ECF No. 1); the Declarations of Steven
Van Kuiken (ECF Nos. l-3-4), Dimitris Triantopoulos (ECF No.
1-5-6), and Jason Hotzler (ECF No. 1-7); and Plaintiffs Brief
in Support of its Motion (ECF No. 1-2). 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 grants in
part and denies in part Plaintiffs Motion. The Court declines
to enter an order to show cause with temporary restraints.
The Court, however, orders expedited discovery.
injunctive relief is an "extraordinary remedy, which
should be granted only in limited circumstances.'"
Ferring 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 that "[it] is likely to
succeed on the merits, that [it] is 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."Nutrasweel Co. v. Vit-Mar Enters.,
176 F.3d 151, 153 (3d Cir. 1999).
movant has the burden of establishing a "clear show mg
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 Tramp, of
Am., 20 F.Supp.2d 727, 766 (D.N.J. 1998) (citation
Court finds Plaintiff failed to demonstrate it is entitled to
immediate relief, as required under Local Civil Rule 65.1(a).
In the instant Motion, Plaintiff argues it will suffer
irreparable harm if temporary restraints are not imposed
because Defendant's alleged misappropriation of
Plaintiffs trade secrets "continue[s] to irreparably
harm McKinsey." (Pl.'s Moving Br. 19-21.) Plaintiff
argues that loss of trade secrets amounts to irreparable
harm, as this loss cannot be compensated by money and cannot
be remedied once the secret is lost. (Id.)
the loss of a trade secret may suffice to demonstrate
irreparable harm, Plaintiff fails to meet its burden of
showing that this irreparable harm is immediate.
Defendant's alleged misappropriation of Plaintiff s trade
secrets occurred between April 18, 2018 and July 15, 2018,
(Ver. Compl. ¶ 45. ECF No. 1.) Defendant began his
employment with Plaintiffs competitor on July 18,
2018. (Id. ¶ 30.) Defendant has
been in the position to misappropriate Plaintiffs trade
secrets for at least fifteen months. Plaintiff fails to
demonstrate how its alleged irreparable injury- after all
this time-is currently emergent and entitles it to the
extraordinary relief of temporary restraints. The Court,
accordingly, denies Plaintiff's motion for an order to
show cause with temporary restraints.
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, Inc. v. Gannett Satellite Info.
Network, Inc. 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 that Defendant's alleged acts are
sufficiently concerning that it is appropriate to engage in
expedited discovery to determine what confidential
information or trade secrets were taken from Plaintiff and if
that information has been disclosed or misappropriated.
on this 15th day of November 2019, ORDERED
Plaintiffs Motion for Entry of an Order to Show Cause with
Temporary Restraints and for Expedited Discovery (ECF No. 1)
is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part.
Plaintiff is not entitled to a preliminary injunction or
Plaintiff is entitled to expedited discovery.
November 22, 2019, the parties must submit a
joint 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 November 22,
2019, the parties must submit separate proposed