Insider Software, Inc. v. ID Designs, Inc. et al, No. 5:2020cv05990 - Document 15 (N.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING IN PART 5 PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE MOTION FOR TRO AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE; AND SETTING HEARING ON 5 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. Responses due by 9/4/2020. Replies due by 9/9/2020. Motion Hearing set for 9/14/2020 10:00 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 3, 5th Floor before Judge Beth Labson Freeman. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 8/28/2020. (blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/28/2020)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 9 INSIDER SOFTWARE, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, 10 v. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 ID DESIGNS, INC., an Oklahoma corporation; and KLAJD DEDA, an individual, Defendants. 14 Case No. 20-cv-05990-BLF ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE MOTION FOR TRO AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE; AND SETTING HEARING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [Re: ECF 5] 15 16 17 Plaintiff Insider Software, Inc. (“Insider”) filed the complaint in this action on August 25, 18 2020, asserting claims against Defendants ID Designs, Inc. (“ID Designs”) and Klajd Deda 19 (“Deda”) for misappropriation of trade secrets under federal and state law, and a number of related 20 claims. See Compl., ECF 1. Simultaneously with filing the complaint, Insider filed an ex parte 21 motion seeking a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and an order to show cause why a 22 preliminary injunction should not issue. See Ex Parte Mot., ECF 5. The Court held a telephonic 23 hearing on the ex parte motion on August 28, 2020, at which Insider’s counsel appeared. 24 As set forth below, Insider’s ex parte motion is GRANTED IN PART. Defendants are 25 HEREBY ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing and on or before September 4, 2020, why 26 the preliminary injunction requested by Insider should not issue. Insider may file a reply on or 27 before September 9, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. A hearing on Insider’s motion for a preliminary 28 injunction is set for September 14, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. 1 2 BACKGROUND Insider has submitted the declaration of its Chief Executive Officer, Bruce Mitchell, which 3 establishes the following facts. See generally Mitchell Decl., ECF 5-3. Insider provides font- 4 management software and subscription services. Id. ¶ 3, ECF 5-3. Its FontAgent family of 5 products assist customers in managing fonts on Mac, Windows, and Linus operating systems. Id. 6 Insider’s products can be installed locally on customer computers, or customers can use the 7 products on a subscription basis through Insider’s cloud-based data center, the FontAgent 8 CloudServer. Id. 9 United States District Court Northern District of California I. For several years, Insider has contracted with ID Designs, a company run by Insider’s 10 former Vice President of Engineering, Deda, to assist in designing, developing, improving, and 11 maintaining Insider’s FontAgent products. Mitchell Decl. ¶ 6. Deda and his wife are the only 12 employees of ID Designs, and Deda is the only employee responsible for compute programming 13 and engineering services. Id. Under the parties’ Master Services Agreement, Insider agreed to 14 pay Defendants 30% of its revenues on the products that ID Designs helped develop. Id. 15 Defendants agreed to relinquish all right, title, and interest in the work performed for Insider, and 16 to treat Insider’s intellectual property in strict confidence. Id. ¶ 7. So that ID Designs and Deda 17 could perform the agreed-upon work, Insider gave Defendants full access to its source code. Id. ¶ 18 8. Insider also made Defendants the “root” users for Insider’s FontAgent CloudServer, meaning 19 that Defendants had the login and password information for the “root” account, which gave them 20 the ability to make unrestricted, system-wide changes to the FontAgent CloudServer. Id. 21 Over the years, Defendants sought to renegotiate the terms of the Master Services 22 Agreement, requesting a larger share of revenues. Mitchell Decl. ¶¶ 9-10. Insider declined, taking 23 the position that the work performed by Defendants was not worth more than 30% of revenues, 24 which according to Insider was already significantly above industry standards. Id. ¶ 10. In early 25 2020, Insider discovered that Defendants had moved Insider’s FontAgent CloudServer from 26 Assembla, the cloud-based source code management service where it had been stored, without 27 Insider’s knowledge or permission. Id. ¶ 11. Defendants are storing Insider’s FontAgent 28 CloudServer on GitHub, another cloud-based source code management service, and/or on 2 1 Defendants’ personal computers. Id. ¶ 12. Defendants also have taken copies of Insider’s source 2 code, object code, build libraries, and other code. Id. ¶ 13. Insider has asked Defendants on 3 several occasions to grant Insider administrative access to its FontAgent CloudServer on GitHub, 4 and to return all of its source code and other intellectual property. Id. ¶¶ 14-16. Defendants have 5 refused. Id. On June 25, 2020, Insider’s counsel notified Defendants of termination of the Master United States District Court Northern District of California 6 7 Services Agreement. Mitchell Decl. ¶ 17. Counsel made several demands on Defendants for 8 return of Insider’s source code and access to its FontAgent CloudServer. Id. ¶¶ 17-19. 9 Defendants have ignored or refused those demands, claiming that the code belongs to them and 10 that they were willing to make a deal for the code’s return. Id. In August 2020, Defendants 11 threatened to offer their coding services to other companies in the same sector, which Insider 12 understands to be a threat to sell or otherwise use its proprietary software for Defendants’ gain. 13 Id. ¶ 19. Defendants also stated that they considered termination of the Master Services 14 Agreement to be “official notice to stop our service and revoke the cloud server” on September 5, 15 2020. Id. Insider understands that to be a threat to deactivate Insider’s FontAgent CloudServer. 16 Id. Deactivation of the FontAgent CloudServer would devastate Insider’s business by interrupting 17 its customers’ ability to use its products. Id. When users run FontAgent software, the software 18 periodically contacts the FontAgent CloudServer to confirm the user license. Id. ¶ 22. If the 19 software cannot contact the FontAgent CloudServer, the user will experience a number of popups 20 and then the software will stop functioning within thirty days. Id. Moreover, without access to its 21 own intellectual property on the FontAgent CloudServer, Insider will be unable to meet 22 commitments to large customers regarding addition of certain features and functionality by this 23 Fall. Id. ¶ 23. 24 25 II. LEGAL STANDARD The Court may issue a TRO without notice to the adverse party only if: “(A) specific facts 26 in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or 27 damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and 28 (B) the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why 3 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 it should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). In addition, this district’s Civil Local Rules 2 require that “[u]nless relieved by order of a Judge for good cause shown, on or before the day of 3 an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order, counsel applying for the temporary 4 restraining order must deliver notice of such motion to opposing counsel or party.” Civ. L.R. 65- 5 1(b). 6 The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is identical to the standard for 7 issuing a preliminary injunction. Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 8 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001); Lockheed Missile & Space Co. v. Hughes Aircraft, 887 F. Supp. 9 1320, 1323 (N.D. Cal. 1995). An injunction is a matter of equitable discretion and is “an 10 extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled 11 to such relief.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). A 12 plaintiff seeking preliminary injunctive relief must establish “[1] that he is likely to succeed on the 13 merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [3] that 14 the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 15 20. “[I]f a plaintiff can only show that there are serious questions going to the merits – a lesser 16 showing than likelihood of success on the merits – then a preliminary injunction may still issue if 17 the balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor, and the other two Winter factors are 18 satisfied.” Friends of the Wild Swan v. Weber, 767 F.3d 936, 942 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal 19 quotation marks and citations omitted). 20 21 III. DISCUSSION The Court has no difficulty finding that Insider has satisfied the requirements for issuance 22 of a TRO ex parte, that a TRO is appropriate in this case, and that no security is warranted. As 23 discussed at the hearing, it is the Court’s view that the scope of injunctive relief requested by 24 Insider is too broad at this stage of the proceedings. Accordingly, while the Court will grant 25 Insider’s motion for a TRO, it will limit the relief granted at this time without prejudice to Insider 26 seeking greater relief on its motion for a preliminary injunction. 27 A. Notice 28 The declaration of Bruce Mitchell, summarized above, establishes that Defendants have 4 1 moved Insider’s FontAgent CloudServer without Insider’s permission, cut off Insider’s access to 2 its own intellectual property, threatened to use Insider’s intellectual property for their own 3 financial gain, and threatened to disable the FontAgent CloudServer on September 5, 2020. These 4 facts demonstrate that Insider will suffer immediate and irreparable injury unless relief is granted 5 quickly, before service of process of the complaint is effected and before full briefing could be 6 obtained. Insider did provide notice of this motion to Defendants via email on August 25, 2020. 7 See Certificate Re Notice, ECF 5-4. However, it is not clear whether Defendants received the 8 email notice, as they have not responded to the motion. Under these circumstances, the Court 9 finds that Insider has shown the requisite good cause to proceed on their motion ex parte. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 B. Analysis 1. Likelihood of Success on the Merits The Court begins its analysis by considering Insider’s showing on the first Winter factor, 13 likelihood of success on the merits. Insider’s motion for TRO is based primarily on its claims for 14 misappropriation of trade secrets under the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (“DTSA”), 18 15 U.S.C. § 1836, and the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”), Civil Code § 3426 et 16 seq. “The contours of the claims are essentially identical. An aggrieved plaintiff must plead and 17 prove three elements: (1) plaintiff owned a trade secret; (2) defendant acquired, disclosed, or used 18 the protected secret through improper means; and (3) defendant caused damage to plaintiff.” 19 Beatport v. SoundCloud, No. CV 19-847 MRW, 2019 WL 6330680, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 20 2019). “Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined.” Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Steele 21 Ins. Agency, Inc., No. 2:13-CV-00784-MCE, 2013 WL 2151553, at *9 (E.D. Cal. May 16, 2013). 22 As discussed above, Insider has presented evidence, through the declaration of Bruce 23 Mitchell, that Defendants have taken control of Insider’s FontAgent CloudServer, refused 24 Insider’s requests for access to it, and threatened to disable the FontAgent CloudServer on 25 September 5, 2020. See Mitchell Decl., ECF 5-2. Mitchell’s declaration is bolstered by the 26 declaration of Insider’s counsel, Thomas McInerney, who attaches correspondence between 27 himself and Defendants supporting Insider’s claims. See McInerney Decl., ECF 5-3. This 28 evidence is sufficient to establish that Insider is likely to succeed on its trade secrets claims. 5 2. 1 2 Insider also has established that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm if a TRO is not 3 granted. Insider’s CEO, Mitchell, explains at length in his declaration that Defendants’ threatened 4 deactivation of the FontAgent CloudServer would devastate Insider’s business by interrupting its 5 customers’ ability to use its products. Mitchell Decl. ¶ 21. Such deactivation would cause 6 Insider’s products to stop working for existing customers. Id. ¶ 22. Moreover, without access to 7 its own intellectual property on the FontAgent CloudServer, Insider will be unable to meet 8 commitments to large customers regarding addition of certain features and functionality by this 9 Fall. Id. ¶ 23. 3. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California Irreparable Harm Balance of Equities 11 The balance of equities favors Insider’s motion for TRO. Based on the record evidence, it 12 appears that Defendants in effect have taken Insider’s intellectual property hostage to extort more 13 than the 30% of revenues agreed upon in the parties’ Master Services Agreement. There does not 14 appear to be any basis under the terms of that agreement or otherwise for Defendants to claim 15 ownership of the intellectual property in question or to prevent Insider’s access to it. 4. 16 17 Public Interest Finally, the public interest favors issuance of a TRO. If Defendants disable the FontAgent 18 CloudServer, all existing users of Insider’s FontAgent products will lose access to the products’ 19 functionality within thirty days. Mitchell Decl. ¶ 22. 20 C. Security 21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) provides that “[t]he court may issue a preliminary 22 injunction or a temporary restraining order only if the movant gives security in an amount that the 23 court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been 24 wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c). The Ninth Circuit has “recognized that 25 Rule 65(c) invests the district court with discretion as to the amount of security required, if any.” 26 Jorgensen v. Cassiday, 320 F.3d 906, 919 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks and citation 27 omitted) (italics in original). “The district court may dispense with the filing of a bond when it 28 concludes there is no realistic likelihood of harm to the defendant from enjoining his or her 6 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 conduct.” Id. 2 Nothing in this record suggests that Defendants will be prejudiced by an injunction 3 prohibiting them from disabling Insider’s FontAgent CloudServer or restoring Insider’s access to 4 its own intellectual property. Accordingly, the Court finds it appropriate to issue injunctive relief 5 without requiring Insider to provide security. 6 D. Scope of Injunctive Relief 7 Insider’s motion for TRO seeks both prohibitory and mandatory injunctive relief. For the 8 reasons discussed above, the Court is satisfied that Insider is entitled to prohibitory injunctive 9 relief, including an order enjoining Defendants from disabling, deactivating, or destroying the 10 FontAgent CloudServer, and enjoining Defendants from using or disclosing any of the materials 11 developed by Defendants for Insider. 12 At the hearing, the Court expressed reservations about granting mandatory injunctive 13 relief, noting that such relief requires a greater showing and that Insider had not addressed that 14 requirement in its briefing. “In general, mandatory injunctions are not granted unless extreme or 15 very serious damage will result and are not issued in doubtful cases or where the injury 16 complained of is capable of compensation in damages.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos 17 Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 878 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation 18 omitted). Applying this standard, the Ninth Circuit has held that a plaintiff seeking a mandatory 19 injunction must establish that “the law and facts clearly favor her position, not simply that she is 20 likely to succeed.” Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2015) (emphasis in 21 original). Insider’s counsel acknowledged that Insider’s motion does not expressly address the 22 greater standard for mandatory injunctive relief, but she argued that such relief is warranted given 23 that Defendants are threatening to destroy, and blocking access to, Insider’s own intellectual 24 property. The Court asked for clarification regarding Insider’s ownership of the FontAgent 25 CloudServer. 26 Insider has addressed the Court’s concerns by filing a Supplemental Declaration of Bruce 27 Mitchell. See Suppl. Mitchell Decl., ECF 13. Mitchell states that the FontAgent CloudServer is 28 Insider’s cloud-based software product that it sells as a subscription service to its large enterprise 7 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 customers; Insider uses the server to check the licenses on other FontAgent software sold to 2 customers; Insider purchased the server equipment to operate the FontAgent CloudServer; and 3 Insider pays the monthly fees to house and run the server equipment. See id. ¶¶ 3-6. Insider also 4 has filed a revised proposed temporary restraining order consistent with the Court’s comments at 5 the hearing indicating that it would be willing to issue a limited mandatory injunction requiring 6 Defendants to grant Insider access to the intellectual property upon a showing of Insider’s 7 ownership of the FontAgent CloudServer, but would be reluctant to grant the more extensive 8 mandatory injunctive relief requested by Insider, such as requiring Defendants to return all code 9 developed by Defendants. The Court is satisfied that the revised proposed order submitted by 10 Insider specifies prohibitory and mandatory injunctive relief that is well-supported by the record 11 evidence. 12 E. 13 A TRO issued without notice “expires at the time after entry – not to exceed 14 days – that Date of Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction 14 the court sets, unless before that time the court, for good cause, extends it for a like period or the 15 adverse party consents to a longer extension.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2). “The reasons for an 16 extension must be entered in the record.” Id. In the present case, the Court proposed that the hearing on the motion for a preliminary 17 18 injunction be set on September 11, 2020, which would be fourteen days after issuance of the TRO. 19 However, Insider’s counsel requested that the hearing be deferred until the following week due to 20 the unavailability of Insider’s lead counsel on September 11, 2020. The Court finds that the 21 unavailability of lead counsel constitutes good cause for extending the TRO beyond the initial 22 fourteen-day period. The Court therefore orders that the TRO shall be in effect for twenty-eight 23 days, until September 25, 2020, or until the Court issues an order on the motion for a preliminary 24 injunction, whichever date is earlier. The extension of the TRO for an additional fourteen days 25 will permit Insider’s lead counsel to argue the motion and will afford the Court an opportunity to 26 fully consider Defendant’s response and issue a reasoned disposition. 27 // 28 // 8 1 2 IV. ORDER (1) Insider’s ex parte motion for a TRO is GRANTED IN PART. The scope of the 3 injunctive relief granted by the Court is set forth fully in the Temporary Restraining 4 Order issued simultaneously with this order; 5 (2) Defendants are HEREBY ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing and on or 6 before September 4, 2020, why the preliminary injunction requested by Insider 7 should not issue. 8 (3) Insider may file a reply on or before September 9, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. 9 (4) A hearing on Insider’s motion for a preliminary injunction is set for September 14, 10 2020 at 10:00 a.m. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 Dated: August 28, 2020 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
