CrossBorder Solutions v. Macias
- Nelson Roman
- 7:20-cv-04877
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 26
In CrossBorder Solutions v. Macias, Gini & O’Connell, Judge Roman denied expedited discovery, granted filing under seal, and directed counsel’s withdrawal after an injunction extended through arbitration.
The ruling affected CrossBorder Solutions, Inc. and Cross Border Transactions, LLC, the individual defendants Liga Hoy, Jiaxin “Claire” Song, and Lijun “Maggie” Tian, and Macias, Gini & O’Connell, LLP. It denied the plaintiffs’ expedited-discovery request, allowed their unredacted motion to be filed under seal, and required proposed withdrawal papers for Tian’s former attorneys.
What happened
CrossBorder Solutions asked the court to require expedited production of documents about alleged efforts by former employees and Macias, Gini & O’Connell to solicit CrossBorder customers and prospects. It also asked to prevent the documents from being marked for lawyers’ eyes only.
The defendants argued that expedited discovery had been authorized only to prepare for a preliminary-injunction hearing. That hearing was later postponed after the parties agreed that the proposed injunction would remain in place during arbitration. They argued that further discovery should instead occur in arbitration or through ordinary discovery procedures.
The court denied the plaintiffs’ discovery request because the injunction had provided the relief sought and made the expedited discovery unnecessary. Judge Nelson S. Roman granted the plaintiffs’ request to file the unredacted motion under seal and directed counsel to submit a proposed order allowing withdrawal from representing Lijun “Maggie” Tian.
The detailed version
- CrossBorder Solutions v. Macias · No. 7:20-cv-04877
- Nelson Roman
- Aug. 7, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs filed a letter motion seeking to compel expedited discovery. They sought documents concerning alleged solicitation of CrossBorder customers and prospects by defendants, including communications involving CrossBorder’s confidential information. They also sought an order preventing defendants from producing responsive documents only under an “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” designation, which would have limited access to the plaintiffs’ lawyers and other permitted recipients.
The court had previously allowed limited expedited discovery in connection with a scheduled preliminary-injunction hearing. The hearing was later adjourned after the parties stipulated that the terms of the preliminary injunction proposed by the plaintiffs would remain in effect for the duration of arbitration. The defendants argued that this agreement supplied the injunctive relief for which the expedited discovery had been authorized. They also argued that discovery concerning past harm or damages belonged in arbitration or in ordinary discovery rather than in expedited proceedings before the court.
Court’s ruling
The court denied the plaintiffs’ application to compel discovery. It explained that the plaintiffs had obtained the injunctive relief they requested and that the expedited discovery was therefore no longer necessary. The opinion does not decide whether the alleged solicitation occurred, whether confidential information was misused, or whether the plaintiffs suffered damages.
The court separately granted the plaintiffs’ letter motion to file the unredacted motion under seal. The court also noted that Gibbons P.C. no longer intended to represent Lijun “Maggie” Tian and directed Wendy R. Stein and Paul Saso to submit a proposed withdrawal order under Local Rule 1.4. The court directed the Clerk to terminate the motions listed at ECF Nos. 57, 58, and 59.
Procedural significance
This was a discovery and sealing order, not a decision on the underlying claims. The denial concerned the need for expedited discovery after the injunction had been extended through arbitration. The order does not state that the plaintiffs are barred from seeking discovery through arbitration or from using other discovery procedures; the defendants made those arguments, but the court’s endorsement specifically states only the rulings described above.
Read the full 26-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.