Rodo Inc. v. Guimaraes
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:22-cv-09736
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Rodo Inc. v. Guimaraes, Judge Broderick expanded expedited discovery before ruling on Rodo's preliminary-injunction request to include offline automotive transactions.
Rodo Inc., Talles Guimaraes, and Ari Cohen; the order determines the scope of discovery they must provide or receive before further proceedings on Rodo's preliminary-injunction request.
What happened
Rodo Inc. asked the court to approve expedited discovery before further briefing on its request for a preliminary injunction, a court order sought before final judgment. The parties agreed on most of the discovery but disagreed about whether two areas should cover all automotive transactions or only online transactions involving defendants Talles Guimaraes and Ari Cohen.
The defendants argued that offline transactions were irrelevant because Rodo's claims and alleged injuries concerned online transactions. Rodo argued that the defendants' employment agreements covered activity throughout the automotive industry and that car sales could harm its business. The court noted that the agreements appeared to cover more than online sales, while making no decision about their precise meaning.
The court ordered the two disputed discovery areas to cover any automotive deals or transactions, whether completed or not, and approved the expedited-discovery and briefing schedule as amended. Judge Broderick also directed the Clerk to terminate the motion at Document 36.
The detailed version
- Rodo Inc. v. Guimaraes · No. 1:22-cv-09736
- Vernon Broderick
- Dec. 5, 2022
Background
Rodo Inc. and defendants Talles Guimaraes and Ari Cohen submitted a joint letter proposing the schedule and scope for expedited discovery before further briefing on Rodo's request for a preliminary injunction. The parties agreed on nine discovery areas except for the scope of the second and ninth areas.
The Discovery Dispute
The disputed issue was whether discovery should cover "any automotive deals or transactions (whether closed or not)" involving the defendants, or only "any online automotive deals or transactions (whether closed or not)." The defendants argued that offline transactions were irrelevant because Rodo's complaint and alleged injuries concerned sales connected to online transactions.
Rodo argued that the defendants' participation in any automotive activity could violate their employment agreements and cause irreparable harm. Rodo also argued that car sales by Cohen could affect its business. The court reviewed the agreement offered for Guimaraes, which defined Rodo's business to include software, website, and mobile-app development; car leasing and sales; finance and insurance products; and the general automotive industry. The agreement for Cohen had a substantially similar definition.
Court's Analysis
The court stated that it was making no determination about the agreements' precise coverage. It nevertheless concluded that the business definition facially appeared to cover more than online car sales. The court therefore found discovery concerning offline automotive transactions relevant to whether Rodo could show irreparable injury and whether it could show serious questions about, or a likelihood of success on, the merits of its preliminary-injunction request.
Order
The court ordered that the second and ninth discovery areas cover "any automotive deals or transactions (whether closed or not)." It ordered expedited discovery and preliminary-injunction briefing to proceed on the schedule in Document 36, with that schedule's scope amended by the order. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at Document 36. The order did not decide whether Rodo was entitled to a preliminary injunction or resolve the ultimate merits of Rodo's claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.