United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Southern Division
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
[1]
STEPHEN M. DOYLE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pending
before the Court is Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for
Immediate Hearing and Expanded Interlocutory Relief (Doc.
62). On May 8, 2019, the undersigned Magistrate Judge held a
hearing on the motion. For the reasons that follow, it is the
recommendation of the undersigned that Plaintiff's Motion
for Expanded Interlocutory Relief (Doc. 62) be denied.
I.
DISCUSSION
Showcoat
Solutions, LLC, (“Plaintiff”) is a company that
sells hair-growth products in the agricultural industry.
See generally (Doc. 76) at 4-5. This case arises
from allegations that Defendants stole Plaintiff's
product formulas and used those formulas to manufacture and
sell their own products, under the name of Code Blue, as well
as allegations that Defendants created and sold counterfeit
goods using Plaintiff's name, likeness, and intellectual
property. See generally (Doc. 76).
Contemporaneous
with its Complaint, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order (Doc. 2), which alleged irreparable and
immediate harm resulting from Defendants' alleged
counterfeiting and sale of Plaintiff's products. The
United States District Judge previously assigned to the case
held a hearing on the Motion, but was unable to conclude the
hearing in the time allotted. Therefore, the District Judge
entered an interim Order, which was agreed to by the parties,
and continued the hearing for a later date. See
(Docs. 11, 12). On the day before the hearing was to
continue, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Order to
Cancel Hearing and Enter Consent Interlocutory Injunction
(Doc. 18). The Court granted the parties' request,
cancelled the hearing, and entered the proposed Interlocutory
Injunction, which reads, in relevant part:
1. All Defendants shall cease using the name “ShowCoat,
” “Volumax, ” “Pop Shot, ” or
using the ShowCoat or similar marks in the manufacture,
marketing, or sale of any goods, or acting in concert with
others to do the same;
2. All Defendants shall not manufacture, market, or sell any
products developed in whole or in part from the ShowCoat
formula or acting in concert with others to do the same;
3. All parties shall preserve and demand the preservation of
all computers, computer tablets, phones, smart phones,
external media (CDs, thumb drives, external hard drives, and
the like), servers, cloud-based storage, and email accounts
on which they have stored any communication or information
with, about, referring to and/or relating to ShowCoat,
ShowCoat's marks, ShowCoat's formula;
4. All parties shall preserve and demand the preservation of
all materials related to the manufacture, marketing, or sale
of livestock hair-enhancement products. Nothing herein
prevents any party from carrying on its normal business
operations except as otherwise prohibited by this order;
5. Plaintiff, its agents, officers, and members shall refrain
from using Defendants' names or disclosing identifying
information about Defendants in connection with this matter,
or acting in concert with o thers to do the same. In
addition, Plaintiff shall delete, destroy, or remove, to the
extent possible, all press releases, announcements, social
media posts, or any other public materials it has produced
using Defendants' names or disclosing identifying
information about Defendants in connection with this matter.
Nothing herein prevents Plaintiff from informing the public
that Wilson and Butler are no longer dealers for Plaintiff,
nor that there may be counterfeit products in circulation in
the market, but such information shall not be presented in a
way that implicates Defendants or associates them with
wrongdoing;
6. No security will be required at this time;
7. This order shall remain in effect during the pendency of
this litigation and until further order of the court[.]
(Doc. 19).
Plaintiff
asserts that the Interlocutory Injunction should be expanded
based upon evidence Plaintiff has acquired during discovery
that purportedly establishes that Defendants stole and used
Plaintiff's proprietary formulas and destroyed key pieces
of evidence in the case. See generally (Doc. 62-1).
Specifically, Plaintiff asks the Court to “[a]llow
Plaintiff to identify the Defendants as the Counterfeiters of
...