Crichlow v. Verituity Inc. and ForgePoint Capital

Background

Mark A. Crichlow filed his complaint on August 5, 2025, and an amended complaint on August 8, 2025. A summons was issued on August 27, 2025. The court stated that it was unclear whether Crichlow had served Verituity Inc. and ForgePoint Capital.

Crichlow filed an emergency declaration on August 19, 2025, and an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction nine days later. His filings described cyberattacks that he believed emanated from or were orchestrated by Defendants. They also identified litigation in the District of Columbia and a Virginia state-court lawsuit initiated by Verituity Inc. against Crichlow.

Requested Relief

Crichlow sought a temporary restraining order to preserve evidence and prevent spoliation, meaning the loss or destruction of potentially relevant evidence. He asked the court to order Defendants to preserve documents; compel production of certain history logs and communications; compel Defendants to consent to subpoenas for vendors’ audit and activity logs; and issue a preservation order.

Court’s Analysis

The court declined to find, on the record before it and without the benefit of an adversary process, that Crichlow had established a likelihood of success on the merits. The court therefore declined to provide the extraordinary relief requested through the discovery-related temporary restraining order.

The court separately stated that all parties had an obligation to preserve evidence that might be relevant to this case and to the pending litigation in the District of Columbia and Virginia state court. It warned that failure to preserve documents could lead to sanctions, including adverse inferences or sanctions that could dispose of a case.

Disposition

The court’s conclusion states that Crichlow’s motion for a temporary restraining order is DENIED. Earlier, the court described the discovery-related application as DENIED without prejudice. Crichlow was ORDERED to serve Defendants with the order, summons, amended complaint, emergency declaration, and temporary-restraining-order motion. All parties were ORDERED to preserve evidence relevant to any claim or defense in this action. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 14, and the court stated that it would schedule a conference after Defendants appeared through counsel.