Shaw v. Edwin Dario Manzano Garcia

Background

The court considered two motions filed by Defendant Edwin Dario Manzano Garcia: a motion for a protective order and a motion for permission to appear by videoconference. The court decided both motions without oral argument.

Videoconference request

Garcia asked to participate by videoconference in future hearings and discovery conferences. He said that he resides in Guatemala and that traveling to the United States for those proceedings would be infeasible. He agreed to maintain stable internet, video, and audio capabilities. Plaintiff Laurence Jay Shaw did not appear to oppose the request.

The court found the request generally reasonable under the circumstances and granted the motion for leave to appear by videoconference. The Clerk was directed to email Garcia Zoom information for future hearings. The court noted that remote participation might not be practicable if the case reaches trial, but it did not decide that issue at this stage.

Protective-order request

Garcia claimed that Shaw had repeatedly interfered with Garcia’s ongoing business operations by contacting third-party vendors. Garcia identified Shopify, PayPal, Stripe, and Etsy as examples and said that Shaw’s communications alleged intellectual-property violations and caused account suspensions and significant business losses.

Garcia requested an order requiring all discovery documents to be marked confidential, securely maintained, and used only for the litigation. He also asked the court to prohibit Shaw and his agents from contacting Garcia’s business partners, payment processors, suppliers, distributors, or customers without written court approval.

The court said that the requested restriction on speaking with third-party vendors appeared to be a prior restraint on speech—a court order restricting speech before it occurs. The court explained that such restraints receive strict scrutiny, meaning the court applies a demanding test. Under that test, the restrained activity must pose a clear and present danger or a serious and imminent threat to a protected interest, the order must be narrowly drawn, and less restrictive alternatives must be unavailable.

The court found that Garcia had not met that standard and indicated that it appeared unlikely he could do so given the nature of the case. The court also said that the parties fundamentally disputed who owned the intellectual property at issue. At this early stage, the court could not determine who was likely to succeed on the merits and would not elevate either party’s rights over the other’s.

Disposition

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted the administrative motion for leave to appear by videoconference, Docket No. 86, and denied the motion for a protective order, Docket No. 85. The parties may meet and confer about whether they can agree to the court’s model protective order.