CrossBorder Solutions v. Macias
- Nelson Roman
- 7:20-cv-04877
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 14
In CrossBorder Solutions v. Hoy, Judge Roman denied without prejudice expedited discovery because the requests were too general and insufficiently specific.
The Individual Defendants’ request for expedited discovery was denied without prejudice, and the Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 44.
What happened
CrossBorder Solutions Inc. et al. v. Hoy et al. involved the Individual Defendants’ request to obtain information quickly before an August 7 hearing on a proposed preliminary injunction, or court order.
The Individual Defendants sought permission to serve five interrogatories, ten document requests, and four deposition notices on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs said they did not oppose reasonable expedited discovery but argued that the requests were not specific enough and could require disclosure of allegedly confidential customer and prospect information.
Judge Nelsen S. Roman denied the Individual Defendants’ application without prejudice because the discovery requests were too general and lacked sufficient specificity. He directed the Clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 44.
The detailed version
- CrossBorder Solutions v. Macias · No. 7:20-cv-04877
- Nelson Roman
- July 24, 2020
Background
The Individual Defendants filed a letter motion seeking leave to serve expedited discovery, meaning information requests on an accelerated schedule, before the August 7, 2020 preliminary-injunction hearing. They sought permission to serve five interrogatories, ten document requests, and four deposition notices on the plaintiffs. The proposed interrogatories asked about customers and potential customers, the meaning of “Competitive Activity” in the Individual Defendants’ employment agreements, and competitors using artificial intelligence or other automated software for transfer-pricing compliance documentation.
Parties’ Positions
The Individual Defendants argued that expedited discovery should be available to defendants and was appropriate to prepare a complete record for the preliminary-injunction hearing. In their reply, they identified proposed deponents and argued that the requested discovery matched the amount of discovery the Court had allowed the plaintiffs. They also argued that information about the customer and prospect lists was needed to evaluate the requested injunction and that the plaintiffs had rejected an attorneys-eyes-only confidentiality designation.
The plaintiffs stated that they did not oppose reasonable expedited discovery but argued that the Individual Defendants had not provided enough detail about the requested document discovery or depositions. The plaintiffs also objected to identifying customer and prospect lists that they described as trade secrets and argued that the discovery requests sought confidential information.
Legal Standard
The Court cited decisions stating that expedited discovery is evaluated under a flexible reasonableness and good-cause standard. The Court also cited four considerations for expedited discovery: irreparable injury, some probability of success on the merits, a connection between the expedited discovery and avoiding the injury, and evidence that the harm from denying expedited relief would be greater than the harm to the defendant if relief were granted.
Ruling
Judge Nelsen S. Roman denied the Individual Defendants’ application without prejudice because the discovery requests were too general and lacked sufficient specificity. The Court directed the Clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 44. The endorsement did not decide the parties’ underlying trade-secret, employment-agreement, or preliminary-injunction disputes.
Read the full 14-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.