United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Monroe Division
JJ PLANK COMPANY, LLC, AND XERIUM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
PEREZ-MONTES MAG. JUDGE.
A. DOUGHTY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the Court is Defendant Gary Bowman's
(“Bowman”) Expedited Motion to Dissolve or,
Alternatively, to Partially Dissolve the June 15, 2018
Temporary Restraining Order [Doc. No. 19]. For the following
reasons, the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
15, 2018, based on the factual allegations contained in
Plaintiffs JJ Plank Company, LLC, and Xerium Technologies,
Inc.'s (collectively “Xerium”) verified
Complaint for Temporary and Permanent Injunctive and Other
Relief [Doc. No. 1] and Motion and Memorandum of Law in
Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and
Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 4], the Court found that
Xerium satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 65(b). Therefore, the Court issued a Temporary
Restraining Order (“TRO”) [Doc. No. 6], which was
set to expire at midnight on June 29, 2018, absent other
order of the Court.
25, 2018, the Court conducted a telephone conference with
counsel for the parties. During that conference, the Court
continued the preliminary injunction hearing to July 12,
2018, and, by agreement of counsel, extended the TRO, pending
further motion practice.
3, 2018, the Court held another telephone conference with
counsel and re-set the preliminary injunction hearing to July
26, 2018. [Doc. No. 17]. The TRO was again continued by
agreement of counsel.
6, 2018, Bowman filed the instant Expedited Motion to
Dissolve or, Alternatively to Partially Dissolve the June 15,
2018 Temporary Restraining Order [Doc. No. 19]. Bowman
contends that the entire TRO should be dissolved because of
Plaintiffs' failure to provide notice prior to issuance
under Rule 65(b)(1) and Local Rule 65.1. Alternatively,
Bowman contends that the Court should strike paragraphs A, C,
and D of the TRO as a matter of law because his
non-competition agreement is not enforceable, and the
allegations that his current employment could result in
disclosure of Xerium's trade secrets are not sufficient
to support these paragraphs of the TRO. He further moves for
expedited consideration under Rule 65(b)(4). Bowman does not
believe a hearing is necessary, but asks for prompt
resolution of the motion.
same day, the Court issued a Minute Entry [Doc. No. 21]
setting a briefing schedule on the motion. The Court ordered
Xerium to file an opposition memorandum by July 18, 2018, and
Bowman to file a reply memorandum by July 24, 2018.
11, 2018, Bowman filed a motion to further expedite
consideration of its Motion to Dissolve or Partially Dissolve
the TRO. [Doc. No. 24]. On July 12, 2018, Xerium filed an
opposition memorandum [Doc. No. 25] to the motion. The same
day, Bowman filed a reply memorandum [Doc. No. 26]. The Court
denied the motion to further expedite, finding that the
“briefing schedule previously set complies with Rule
65(b)(4) and will allow . . . the Court to decide the pending
motion as promptly as justice requires.” [Doc. No. 28].
The Court noted its “intent . . . to decide the Motion
to Dissolve prior to the hearing on the motion for
preliminary injunction.” Id.
19, 2018, Xerium filed a memorandum in opposition to the
instant motion. [Doc. No. 45].
24, 2018, Bowman filed a reply memorandum in support of the
instant motion. [Doc. No. 48].
Court is now prepared to rule.