Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Workflow Solutions, LLC v. Riffel

December 19, 2008

WORKFLOW SOLUTIONS, LLC, DBA WORKFLOWONE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
GEORGE RIFFEL, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Leo S. Papas U.S. Magistrate Judge

ORDER TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION

On October 16, 2008, Plaintiff Workflow Solutions ("Plaintiff") filed an Ex Parte Application for An Order To, inter alia, Expedite Discovery ("Ex Parte App.") On November 5 and 12, 2008, the Court held a Status Conference and Settlement Conference in this action.

The Court, having reviewed Plaintiff's Ex Parte App., and GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, HEREBY ORDERS Defendant George Riffel ("Defendant") to respond in detail under penalty of perjury to each contention alleged in Plaintiff's Ex Parte App. Riffel's response shall be annotated to all documents, including e-mails, which substantiate his position. Riffel's response shall be filed with the Court and served on opposing counsel on or before January 12, 2009. With regard to 4 (a)-(e) below, all documents responsive to Plaintiff's requests shall be produced to the Court in unredacted and unedited form. Responses shall be filed and served to the following:

1. Pre-Settlement Improper Disclosures/Use of Confidential Information

1(a). Plaintiff alleges that in April 2008, prior to the settlement of the underlying case, Defendant disclosed the 7% pricing discount he had offered on behalf of Defendant to Brookstone "2 weeks before (he was) downsized." Defendant then incorporated the same 7% discount in Smart Source's agreement with Brookstone, which enabled Smart source to match Brookstone's pricing discount, (Ex. G to Ex Parte App.)

1(b). In April 2008, Defendant improperly obtained confidential information about Brookstone's on-going product orders from Defendant's customer service representative Anna Ching ("Ching"). Defendant used that information as a basis for telling Scott Alton ("Alton") to limit the orders from Defendant and reduce overall product inventory with Defendant, which thereafter Brookstone did. (Ex. F to Ex Parte App.)

1(c). In April 2008, Defendant disclosed confidential information about Plaintiff's plans to move inventory to another warehouse in a few days. Defendant then advised Alton to demand that "all inventory stays put until Father's Day." (Ex. F to Ex Parte App.)

1(d). After the settlement of the underlying case Defendant gave Alton confidential information about Plaintiff's pricing and profit margins: "The bag and battery profits have traditionally funded this program in the most part so losing margin here would really hurt the health of the program." (Ex. H to Ex Parte App.)

1(e). Defendant asked Alton to get him the user name and password to access Plaintiff's confidential customer website. (Ex. I to Ex Parte App.)

2. Targeting Plaintiff's Employees 2(a). Defendant assured Alton that, as of May 22, 2008, "we have everything lined up and ready to go, including support personnel." (Ex. L to Ex Parte App.)

2(b). On July 29, 2008, Ching announced her plan to resign from Plaintiff, after receiving a telephone call from Alton. (Declaration of Bob Abbonzio in support of Ex Parte App.) Until Ching was on board at Smart Source, Defendant was expected to manage the new Brookstone account. (Ex. P to Ex Parte App.)

2(c). Defendant called Defendant's Account Executive Dave Hunt, told Hunt that the Brookstone account was moving to Smart Source, and asked about Hunt's plans and options after a recent change to Hunt's compensation plan at Plaintiff. Smart Source was actively recruiting Hunt, who was Plaintiff's lead account executive for Brookstone. (Declaration of Bob Abbonzio in support of Ex Parte App.)

3. False, Misleading, Disparaging Statements about Plaintiff 3(a). Defendant told Alton and Brookstone that Plaintiff had decided to "exit the vertical retail market" business model and revert to a "manufacturing mentality." (Ex. S to Ex Parte App.) Defendant claimed that Plaintiff had terminated the employment of nearly every employee who was part of the vertical retail market team, beginning with himself. These statements were false. Plaintiff terminated Defendant's employment because Defendant misappropriated money through false business expenses. Plaintiff did not terminate Ching's employment and did not terminate others identified by Defendant.

3(b). Prior to settlement of the underlying case, on April 17, 2008, Defendant told Alton that Plaintiff had "down sized" him. Defendant did not tell Alton that his employment was terminated due to Defendant's ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.