Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Agency Solutions.Com, LLC v. Trizetto Group

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 28, 2011

AGENCY SOLUTIONS.COM, LLC
AWI GSA D.B.A. HEALTHCONNECT SYSTEMS,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
TRIZETTO GROUP, INC.,
DEFENDANT.

ORDER MOVING HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 1, 2011, ORDER PERMITTING SURTHE REPLY AND RELATED ORDERS

In this action for misappropriation of trade secrets, plaintiff Healthconnect Systems ("Plaintiff") has moved for preliminary injunction against defendant Trizetto Group, Inc. ("Defendant"). In support of, and in opposition to, Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction, the parties have submitted both legal briefs and supporting documents. Two concerns arise.

First, the volume of documents submitted is substantially larger than the court normally encounters in regards to preliminary injunctions. The court will require additional time to review the documents provided.

Second, the parties stipulated to an Order for Expedited Discovery, which was filed on June 27, 2011. Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction and Defendants opposition appear to have been filed prior to the conduct of any significant discovery. Plaintiff's reply to Defendant's opposition, however, indicates the inclusion of a large number of documents that appears to have been at least in part the product of the expedited discovery process. The court finds that the interests of a more complete consideration of the factual basis of Plaintiff's motion would be served by providing Defendant an opportunity to submit a sur-reply to Plaintiff's reply brief. Should Defendant wish to submit a sur-reply, Defendant shall limit the scope of such sur-reply to address specifically those documents and products of expedited discovery that were used by Plaintiff in its reply brief or that were made available during the same period of expedited discovery.

A final concern of the court is that the court's docket is becoming cluttered with redacted versions of documents, unredacted versions of which are later being filed under seal. The court, having reviewed a number of the redacted documents finds they serve no useful purpose and tend to make the recovery of the corresponding unredacted documents more difficult. The court will require that only unredacted versions of documents be submitted to the court unless some particular purpose is served by the submission of a redacted version.

THEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The hearing on Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction that was previously scheduled for Monday, August 1, 2011 at 1:30 p.m. is hereby MOVED to Monday, August 22, 2011, at 1:30 p.m. in courtroom 2.

2. Defendant may file and serve a sur-reply to Plaintiff's reply in support of the motion for preliminary injunction not later than 4:30 p.m., Thursday, August 4, 2011. Any sur-reply shall be limited in scope in accordance with the foregoing discussion.

3. Any party seeking to file a document with the court containing significant amounts of material requiring confidential treatment shall e-mail the document or documents to awiorders@caed.uscourts.gov together with a request to file under seal and a proposed order to file under seal. Any documents e-mailed to the court with an accompanying request to seal shall be deemed filed on the date and time the e-mail is received. Any party seeking to file a redacted documents shall provide the court with an explanation of why the filing of a redacted document is necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20110728

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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