Juries.AI v. Sheu

Background

Juries.AI sued Vincent Sheu, its former co-founder and employee, asserting a federal trade-secret claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act and state-law claims for trade-secret misappropriation, breach of contract, computer fraud, and conversion. Juries.AI simultaneously filed an application for an ex parte temporary restraining order, meaning an order issued before the opposing party has an opportunity to be heard. It also requested expedited discovery.

According to the declaration submitted by Juries.AI’s co-founder and chief executive officer, Juries.AI developed an artificial-intelligence platform for courtroom simulation. The company claimed trade-secret protection for its data-collection and data-processing methods, data from more than eighty potential jurors, methods for validating the data, and source code. Sheu had access to the company’s source code, document repositories, administrative systems, a digital banking account holding more than $400,000, and an Amazon Web Services account containing more than $190,000 in credits.

Sheu signed a confidentiality and inventions-assignment agreement. The agreement required him to keep confidential information secret, return company materials, provide information needed to access company property, and cooperate with the company after leaving. Juries.AI terminated Sheu on October 31, 2025, for performance issues and asked him to return its documents and proprietary information. Juries.AI alleged that Sheu restricted its access to company accounts, retained unauthorized access to systems containing trade secrets, and continued to possess source code and business information.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the standard used for a preliminary injunction. Juries.AI had to show a likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without immediate relief, that the balance of equities favored it, and that an injunction would serve the public interest. The court also considered whether the requirements for an emergency order without advance notice were satisfied.

The court concluded that Juries.AI had made a strong showing on its Defend Trade Secrets Act claim. It found that the information Sheu allegedly retained—including source code, juror-data methods, interview results, business plans, pricing, and potential customers—could qualify as trade secrets because it had economic value from not being generally known and Juries.AI had taken reasonable steps to protect its secrecy. The court found that the alleged post-termination access and refusal to return the information created a significant threat to the value of Juries.AI’s products and business opportunities. Because of that strong showing, the court did not analyze the likelihood of success on Juries.AI’s state-law claims.

The court also found likely irreparable harm because Sheu allegedly possessed information about a new product, interfered with access to accounts needed for daily operations, and expressed an intention that Juries.AI be terminated. It found that the balance of equities favored Juries.AI and that the public interest supported protecting trade secrets while allowing lawful competition.

The court determined that Juries.AI satisfied the requirements for an ex parte order. Its evidence showed that Sheu retained access to trade secrets and company property, interfered with company accounts, and allegedly attempted to use the information for his own benefit. Juries.AI’s attorney also submitted a declaration stating that the complaint, application, and supporting declaration had been emailed to Sheu’s last known email address. The court therefore found that issuing the order before proof of completed service was appropriate.

Order

The court granted Juries.AI’s ex parte application in part. It granted the temporary restraining order and immediately prohibited Sheu, until December 9, 2025, from obtaining, retaining, using, copying, disclosing, transmitting, or disseminating Juries.AI’s trade secrets or confidential information; using that information to solicit business from existing or prospective investors or customers; tampering with, deleting, concealing, altering, or destroying relevant documents or information; and violating the confidentiality and inventions-assignment agreement.

The court also ordered Sheu, within 48 hours after service of the order, to return Juries.AI’s property and information without altering or disposing of it, transfer two-factor authentication to Elizabeth G. Parikh or disable it so she could access the accounts, and sign documents needed to reestablish Juries.AI’s control of its accounts. The court issued the temporary restraining order without requiring Juries.AI to post security.

The court did not grant expedited discovery at that stage. It ordered that request to be considered at the December 4, 2025 hearing. Sheu was ordered to appear before Judge Beth Labson Freeman on that date and show cause why a preliminary injunction with the same restrictions should not remain in effect during the case. The opinion does not decide final liability on Juries.AI’s claims.