How not to seek expedited discovery for preliminary injunction motions

When you think your trade secrets have been stolen, you really want to consider being aggressive. Investigate swiftly. File a complaint. Seek a preliminary injunction.

As part of that, you’re probably going to want to seek expedited discovery. Maybe you want evidence to show that your former employee is stealing your customer relationships. Or to determine what sensitive data your former employee stole.

Whatever you want, don’t screw it up.

Exhibit A on this is a new case out of the Eastern District of California, Storz Management Co. v. Carey. Storz was seeking expedited discovery on all sorts of things. Its property. The defendants’ business records. Their tax returns. Their communication records with everybody.

The court was fully on board with allowing expedited discovery to support motions for preliminary injunctions. But Storz couldn't make a convincing showing on why this discovery would support its preliminary injunction motion.

Storz claimed it would help locate missing files. Yet that was undermined by Storz’s repeated claims that these files were destroyed and “knowing more [is] impossible.” What's more, the bulk of the requested discovery had zero to do with this claimed need.

So be sure to make a legit showing of why you need the expedited discovery to support your motion for a preliminary injunction.

And don’t shoot yourself in the foot by filing a cocksure preliminary injunction motion. Which is what Storz did. Its preliminary injunction motion argued that its evidence established the defendants’ liability and Storz’s llikelihood of success. 

Storz got dinged for this too. If it really needed expedited discovery to support its preliminary injunction motion, it wouldn't have been able to argue that the evidence it already possessed was enough to win the motion.