United States District Court, S.D. California
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO EXPEDITE DISCOVERY AND FOR A
PRESERVATION ORDER [ECF NO. 3]
Mitchell D. Dembin United States Magistrate Judge
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
(Id. ¶¶ 37, 38, 40).
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).
provided herein, Plaintiff's motion for a preservation
order is GRANTED. Plaintiff's motion for expedited
discovery is DENIED.
Motion for Preservation Order
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
2) Any irreparable harm likely to result to the party seeking
the preservation of the evidence absent an order directing
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
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).
Motion for ...