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.

Garfield Beach CVS LLC v. Mollison Pharmacy

United States District Court, S.D. California

May 24, 2017

GARFIELD BEACH CVS LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
MOLLISON PHARMACY and SAMERA YOKOUB, Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO EXPEDITE DISCOVERY AND FOR A PRESERVATION ORDER [ECF NO. 3]

          Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin United States Magistrate Judge

         In April 2017, CVS purchased El Cajon Express Pharmacy. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 3). Defendant Yokoub was a delivery driver for Express. (Id. ¶ 15). This case stems from allegations by CVS that Yokoub misappropriated customer lists, derived from her delivery logs, that Defendant Mollison Pharmacy has used to lure customers from CVS.[1] (Id. ¶¶ 37, 38, 40).

         On March 2, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant motion seeking a temporary restraining order, a preservation order, and an order authorizing expedited discovery. (ECF No. 3). The motions for a preservation order and for expedited discovery were referred to this Court by the district judge. Defendants responded in opposition on May 15, 2017. (ECF No. 17). Plaintiff replied on May 17, 2017. (ECF No. 18).

         As provided herein, Plaintiff's motion for a preservation order is GRANTED. Plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery is DENIED.

         DISCUSSION

         A. Motion for Preservation Order

         In considering a motion for an order preserving evidence, the court is to consider:

1) The level of concern the court has for the continuing existence and maintenance of the integrity of the evidence in question in the absence of an order directing preservation of the evidence;
2) Any irreparable harm likely to result to the party seeking the preservation of the evidence absent an order directing preservation; and
3) The capability of an individual, entity, or party to maintain the evidence sought to be preserved.

Jardin v. Datallegro, Inc., et al, No. 08-cv-1462, 2008 WL 4104473 *1 (September 3, 2008, S.D. Cal.) (citations omitted).

         Although asserting that the facts in support of the motion presented by Plaintiff are not accurate, Defendants state that they “do not generally object” to the Court issuing a preservation order. (ECF No. 17 at 2). Although it is not quite clear what the lack of general objection means, the Court takes it that Defendants do not oppose. It is not for the Court to second guess that decision. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for a preservation order is GRANTED as requested by Plaintiff. (See ECF No. 3-1 at 18-19[2]).

         B. Motion for ...


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.