Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
27Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Snapchat Files Restraining Order

Snapchat Files Restraining Order

Ratings: (0)|Views: 126,882 |Likes:
Published by Jordan Crook
Motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction filed by Snapchat against Reggie Brown.
Motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction filed by Snapchat against Reggie Brown.

More info:

Categories:Business/Law
Published by: Jordan Crook on Dec 09, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/23/2014

pdf

text

original

 
1

05201.23771/5648815.3
 APPLICATION FOR TRO AND OSC RE PROTECTIVE ORDER VIOLATIONS 
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART&SULLIVAN,LLP John B. Quinn (Bar No.090378) (johnquinn@quinnemanuel.com) Bruce E. Van Dalsem (Bar No.124128) (brucevandalsem@quinnemanuel.com) B. Dylan Proctor (Bar No.219354) (dylanproctor@quinnemanuel.com) Joseph C. Sarles (Bar No.254750) (josephsarles@quinnemanuel.com)865South Figueroa Street, 10
th
Floor LosAngeles, California90017-2543Telephone:(213)443-3000Facsimile:(213)443-3100Attorneys for Defendants Snapchat,Inc., Toyopa Group,LLC,Evan Thomas Spiegel, and Robert Cornelius MurphyUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAWESTERN DIVISIONFRANK REGINALD BROWN IV, an individual,Plaintiff,vs.SNAPCHAT, INC., a Delaware corporation; TOYOPA GROUP,LLC, a CaliforniaLimited Liability Company; EVAN THOMAS SPIEGEL, an individual; ROBERT CORNELIUS MURPHY, an individual;LIGHTSPEED VENTURE PARTNERS IX, L.P., a California limited partnership; BENCHMARK CAPITAL PARTNERS VII, L.P., a California limited partnership; INSTITUTIONAL VENTURE PARTNERS XIV, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership; GENERAL CATALYST GROUP VI, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership; GC&H INVESTMENTS,LLC, a California limited liability company; SV ANGEL IV, L.P., a Delaware limited  partnership; SF GROWTH FUND, an unknown entity; THL A17 Limited, an unknown entity; and DOES 1 through25 inclusive.Defendants.CASE NO.2:13-CV-8569 RGK (SSx)Judge: Hon. SuzanneH. SegalCourtroom 23
DISCOVERY MATTER APPLICATION OF DEFENDANTS SNAPCHAT, INC., EVAN THOMAS SPIEGEL, AND ROBERT CORNELIUS MURPHY FOR:(1)TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER;(2)ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION;(3)ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISCOVERY, CONTEMPT,AND SANCTIONSMEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
([Proposed] Temporary Restraining Order, [Proposed] Order to Show Cause, and Declaration of Bruce E. Van Dalsem filed concurrently)
Case 2:13-cv-08569-RGK-SS Document 13 Filed 12/06/13 Page 1 of 29 Page ID #:1306
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728-i-
 APPLICATION FOR TRO AND OSC RE PROTECTIVE ORDER VIOLATIONS 
APPLICATIONFOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Pursuant to Rules 37and65of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedureand this Court’s inherent power, defendants Snapchat,Inc., Evan Spiegel, and Robert Murphy(collectively, “Snapchat”) respectfully seek (1)a temporary restraining order andorder to show cause for issuance of a preliminary injunctionto prevent plaintiff and his counsel from further violating the Protective Order entered in this case by wrongfully disclosing Snapchat’s confidential information, and (2)an order to show cause why plaintiff and his counsel should not be held in contemptand sanctionedfor Protective Order violations they have committed. On or about November21, 2013, the news publication Business Insider (www.businessinsider.com)(“Business Insider”) released what it described as “leaked videos”of depositions in this case that Snapchathaddesignated as “Confidential”under the Protective Order. On November25, 2013, Business Insider released “more never-before-seen clips from the depositions.” Snapchatimmediately demanded thatplaintiff disclosethe source of these “leaks.” On December2, 2013, after repeated inquiries, plaintiff’s counsel finally admitted that they had knowingly provided members of the media with deposition testimony that Snapchat had designated as “Confidential”under the Protective Order entered in this case. (The Protective Order was entered by the Superior Court of the County of LosAngelesprior to defendants’removal of this action to this Court, and is now enforceable as an order of this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1450.) Plaintiff and his counsel boldly claimed they had a right to make such disclosures—despite the contrary terms of the Protective Order—because they unilaterally (and wrongly) determined that Snapchathad waived itsrights under the Protective Order. Plaintiff and his counsel also refused to cease further violations of the Protective Order, stating that they reserve the right todisclose Snapchat’s confidential documents and information to the media—at any time and without any warning or meet and confer— 
Case 2:13-cv-08569-RGK-SS Document 13 Filed 12/06/13 Page 2 of 29 Page ID #:1307
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728-ii-
 APPLICATION FOR TRO AND OSC RE PROTECTIVE ORDER VIOLATIONS 
wheneverthey unilaterally determine thatSnapchat has, in their erroneous view, waived its rights under that Order.As established in the accompanying memorandum of points and authorities, supporting declaration and exhibits, Snapchat will suffer great or irreparable injury if  plaintiff ispermitted to disclose Snapchat’s confidential information to the public. Atemporary restraining order istherefore necessary. Further, an order to show cause why Plaintiff and his counsel should not be held in contempt and sanctioned should also issue. Accordingly, pursuant to Rules 37 and 65of the
 Federal Rules of Civil  Procedure
, Local Rules 7-19 and 65-1, 28 U.S.C. §1450, and this Court’s inherent  powers,Snapchatseeks the following orders:(1)A temporary restrainingorder (“TRO”) enjoining plaintiff and his counseland their agents,or any other person acting on their behalfor in concert with them,from any further disclosures of information designated as “Confidential”or “Highly Confidential—Attorney’s Eyes Onlyunder the Protective Orderexcept as  permitted by the Protective Order, including specifically that all such persons are enjoined from disclosing such information on the purported basis that plaintiff unilaterally determines that Snapchathas waived its rights under that Order;(2)An orderto show cause (“OSC”) why the TRO should not be entered as a preliminary injunction;(3)An OSC why Snapchat should not be permitted to take immediate discovery into theProtective Order violations, including through document demands, a deposition of the plaintiff,and a Rule 30(b)(6)deposition of his counsel;and(4) An OSC whyplaintiffand hiscounsel should not be held in contempt and sanctionedfor their violations of the Protective Order, including at a minimum by
Case 2:13-cv-08569-RGK-SS Document 13 Filed 12/06/13 Page 3 of 29 Page ID #:1308

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->