ZENDAR INC., Plaintiff, v. CHRISTOPHER HANKS, Defendant Case No. 20-cv-03391-JSW United States District Court, N.D. California Filed May 27, 2020 Counsel Rupa Nath Cook, Jessica Catherine Shafer, Nath Cook Law, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff White, Jeffrey S., United States District Judge ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND GRANTING IN PART REQUESTS FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY; AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE *1 Now before the Court for consideration is the ex parte application for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) filed by Plaintiff Zendar Inc. (“Zendar”). In that application, Zendar asks for a preservation order and early discovery, including permission to access and “clone” defendant Christopher Hanks' (“Hanks”) mobile devices, personal computers, and other computers or servers. On May 20, 2020, the Court issued an Order directing Zendar to serve Hanks with all filings, including that Order, and set a briefing schedule. (Dkt. No. 12.) Zendar filed a proof of service showing that it served Hanks on May 21, 2020 by personal service. (Dkt. No. 13.) Hanks' opposition was due by 1:00 p.m. on May 26, 2020. Hanks has not filed an opposition. Accordingly, having considered Zendar's papers, relevant legal authority, the lack of opposition, and the record in this case, the Court concludes the application can be resolved on the papers, and it VACATES the hearing schedule for May 29, 2020. For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Zendar's application for a TRO, GRANTS IN PART its request for expedited discovery, and sets a briefing schedule and hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction. BACKGROUND Zendar develops what it describes as “novel, cutting-edge, high-definition radar for use by autonomous vehicle companies in their autonomous vehicles,” which includes “high-definition, weather-robust radars that allow vehicles to ‘see’ close to one hundred meters in any direction through myriad weather and other visibility-reducing conditions.” (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 15-19; Declaration of Vinayak Nagpal (“Nagpal Decl.”), ¶ 2; Declaration of Jimmy Wang (“Wang Decl.”), ¶ 2.) This technology is “comprised of a specific combination of proprietary hardware configuration and designs, software code, and measurement and other technical data,” which Zendar attests it developed over three years from the “ground up” and “in-house” at a cost of millions of dollars. (Nagpal Decl., ¶¶ 2-3; Wang Decl. ¶¶ 2-3; Compl. ¶ 19.) The Court refers to this technology as the “Company IP”. Zendar takes steps to protect the Company IP by, inter alia: having employees sign non-disclosure agreements (“NDA”) before they begin employment and before they access any portion of the Company IP; instructing employees to treat confidential information in accordance with specific rules; requiring employees to sign a confidential information and inventions assignment agreement (“CIAA”), which defines trade secrets and confidential information; prohibiting employees from using such material except in connection with their employment duties and from disclosing such material to anyone outside Zendar; and, requiring employees to return copies of all such materials when they cease working for Zendar. (Compl. ¶¶ 21-26, Ex. A (CIAA); Nagpal Decl., ¶ 4; see also id. ¶¶ 5-9 (addressing additional measures taken to protect Company IP); Wang Decl., ¶ 4.) Zendar hired Hanks as a software engineer on July 30, 2017, and Hanks signed a CIAA on that date. (Wang Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. A (Hanks' CIAA).) Pursuant to the terms of the CIAA, Hanks agreed, inter alia, “to hold in strictest confidence, and not to use, except for the benefit of the Company to the extent necessary to perform my obligations to the Company under the Relationship, and not to disclose to any person, firm, corporation or other entity, without written authorization from the Company in each instance, any Confidential Information that I obtain, access or create during the term of the Relationship[.] ... I further agree not to make copies of such Confidential Information except as authorized by the Company.” (CIAA ¶ 2.(a).) Confidential information is defined in Paragraph 2(b) and *2 includes, without limitation; (i) Company Inventions ... and (ii) technical data, trade secrets, know-how, research, product or service ideas or plans, software codes and designs, algorithms, developments, inventions, patent applications, laboratory notebooks, processes, formulas, techniques, biological materials, mask works, engineering designs and drawings, hardware configuration information, agreements with third parties, lists of, or information relating to, employees and consultants of the Company (including, but not limited to the names, contact information, jobs, compensation, and expertise of such employees and consultants), lists of, or information relating to, suppliers and customers (including, but not limited to, customers of the company on whom I called or with whom I became acquainted during the Relationship), price lists, pricing methodologies, cost data, market share data, marketing plans, licenses, contract information, business plans, financial forecasts, historical financial data, budgets or other business information disclosed to me by the Company, either directly or indirectly, whether in writing, electronically, orally or by observation. (Hanks CIAA ¶ 2(b).) Hanks had working knowledge of Zendar's computer systems, security infrastructure and vulnerabilities, in part because he helped create them. According to Zendar, Hanks served as its default systems administrator, had access to all of the Company IP, had access as an administrator to various third-party accounts and systems that hold the Company IP and files, and had access to other confidential and proprietary business information, such as investor lists and financial plans. (Wang Decl., ¶¶ 5-8; see also Declaration of Bryce Hathaway (“Hathaway Decl.”), ¶ 2.) On May 12, 2020, at about 11:45 a.m., one of Zendar's employees reported to Wang and Nagpal that she had received messages from Hanks that she perceived as threatening. Wang and Nagpal approached Hanks in person to discuss the issue, and they attest that during the encounter Hanks became hostile and made threats to them and to Nagpal's wife. They also attest that although Hanks initially offered to resign and leave voluntarily, he changed his mind and they were forced to terminate him. Hanks left Zendar's premises around 2:00 p.m. but had intermittent access to his computer during this time. (Wang Decl., ¶¶ 11-13; Nagpal Decl., ¶¶ 10-13, Ex. 1.) Nagpal disabled Hanks' access to Zendar's email, on-line chat and Git-Hub access within 10 minutes of his departure, and shortly thereafter Hanks called Wang and said, “in essence, ‘I did my damage, you guys are fucked.” (Nagpal Decl., ¶ 14; Wang Decl., ¶ 15.) Around 1:55 p.m., Zendar employees began reporting to Wang and Nagpal that they were having trouble with the company's VPN system, and Zendar discovered that the VPN host machine had been deliberately powered off. During that time Hanks also sent a message to Zendar employees advising them that he had been terminated. (Wang Decl., ¶¶ 16, 18; Nagpal Dec., ¶¶ 16-17; Hathaway Decl., ¶¶ 3-5, Ex. A.) Zendar also discovered that it appeared that someone had copied or attempted to copy Hanks' “home directory”, located on his work computer, to a folder named “chris/revenge” on a remote machine. Nagpal attests that Hanks' home directory contains “approximately ½ terabyte ... of Zendar's proprietary and confidential information, including the Company IP” and VPN certificates that could enable Hanks to access Zendar's systems through backdoor channels. After Zendar was able to restore its VPN access and had worked on securing its computers and computer network, it was discovered that some of the computer passwords it had changed following Hanks' departure had been changed back to the original password. Hanks was one of two people who knew that password. (Nagpal Decl., ¶¶ 19, 22-24; see also Wang Decl., ¶¶ 21, 23, 25-27, Ex. C; Hathaway Decl., ¶¶ 6-22, Ex. C.) Following his termination, Hanks sent messages to Wang that included references to punishment and stated he was emailing investors and apparently did email one of the company's largest investors. According to Zendar, in that email Hanks disparaged Zendar and its founders and advised them that Zendar had a deliverable due on May 15, 2020 for which he had been the primary engineer. (Wang Decl., ¶¶ 22, 24, Ex. B; Nagpal. Decl., ¶ 21.) Nagpal also had to call the police to prevent Hanks from returning to Zendar's premises to retrieve items he had left there. (Wang Decl., ¶¶ 22-23; Nagpal Decl., ¶ 20.) In addition, the disruption to Zendar's VPN network caused its employees to focus on securing the systems and, in some cases, prevented them from working, which affected its ability to “deliver product to a critical customer.” (Wang Decl., ¶ 28; see also Nagpal Decl., ¶ 25.) *3 On May 13, 2020, Zendar, through its counsel, attempted to deliver a cease and desist letter demanding Hanks cease any violation of the CIAA and/or use and disclosure of the confidential information and the Company IP. That letter was eventually delivered to Hanks on May 16, 2020. On May 19, 2020, Hanks emailed Zendar's counsel to acknowledge receipt of those documents but as of 1:00 p.m. on that day, Hanks had not complied with Zendar's requests. (Declaration of Rupa Nath, ¶¶ 2-7.) Based on these and other facts the Court shall address as necessary, Zendar asserts claims for violations of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”), 18 U.S.C. sections 1836, et seq., and California's Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”), Cal. Civil Code sections 3426.1, et seq., breach of contract, intentional interference with contractual relations, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and conversion. ANALYSIS A. Applicable Legal Standard. Preliminary injunctive relief, whether in the form of a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, is an “extraordinary and drastic remedy” that is never awarded as of right. Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689-690 (2008) (internal citations omitted). In order to obtain such relief, Zendar must establish: (1) it is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in its favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). In Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, the Ninth Circuit held that the “serious questions” sliding scale approach survives Winter. 632 F.3d 1127, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2011). Thus, a court may grant a TRO if a plaintiff demonstrates that there are serious questions going to the merits and a hardship balance that tips sharply in their favor, if the other two elements of the Winter test are also met. Id. at 1132. B. Likelihood of Success on the Merits. In order to prevail on the DTSA and CUTSA claims, Zendar must show that the information at issue is a trade secret and that Hanks misappropriated them. See, e.g., MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 520 (9th Cir. 1993) (discussing CUTSA); Cutera, Inc. v. Lutronic Aesthetics, Inc., -- F. Supp. 3d --, 2020 WL 1234551, at *4 (E.D. Cal. March 13, 2020); Comet Techs. USA, Inc. v. Buerman, No. 18-cv-01441-LHK, 2018 WL 1990226, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2018). Through the Wang and Nagpal declarations, Zendar has demonstrated it is reasonably likely to be able to show that it takes reasonable steps to keep the Company IP and other confidential information secret. See 18 U.S.C. § 1839(3)(A); Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.1(d)(2). By way of example, it uses the CIAA and unique passwords and restricts employee access to certain repositories where Zendar's source code is located as means of protecting the information. See, e.g., Cutera, 2020 WL 1234551, at *6; Comet Techs., 2018 WL 1990226, at *3. Zendar also attests that it has taken three years and millions of dollars to develop the information from the ground up. Thus it has put forth a showing that is reasonably likely to be able to show the Company IP and other confidential information “derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by, another person who can obtain economic value from the disclosure or use of the information.” Id. 1839(3)(B); see also Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.1(d)(1) (a trade secret is information ... that “[d]erives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to the public or to other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use”); see also Cutera, 2020 WL 1234551, at * 5 (finding plaintiff could likely show information was a trade secret where it “spent significant time and resources” developing the information); Comet Techs., 2018 WL 1990226, at *3 (finding plaintiff was reasonably likely to show information qualified as trade secret under the CUTSA and DTSA because “[a] collection of data that allows the holder to recreate one of Plaintiff's top technologies derives its value from not being generally known, because Plaintiff's competitive edge would evaporate if the public and its competitors could easily recreate its products”). *4 Under the DTSA and the CUTSA, the term “misappropriation” means “acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means.” 18 U.S.C. § 1839(5)(A); Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.1(b)(1). The phrase “improper means” includes “theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means....” 18 U.S.C. § 1839(6)(A); Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.1(a). Zendar has proffered Hanks' CIAA, in which he agreed not to disclose confidential information except for Zendar's benefit. He also agreed that, upon termination, he would deliver to Zendar, inter alia, data, reports, proposals, correspondence, specification, drawing, flow charts, and other documents or property belonging to Zendar. (Hanks CIAA ¶ 4.) In contravention of those terms, Zendar puts forth evidence that strongly suggests Hanks downloaded information from his company computer to a device off-site in a folder labelled “chris/revenge.” He also is alleged to have advised Wang that he did his damage. Those facts suggest more than mere possession and suggest that Hanks intent to use the information to cause damage to Zendar. Cf. Cutera, 2020 WL 1234551, at *6 (noting mere possession of trade secrets by departing employee not sufficient to show misappropriation). Zendar, through counsel, also reminded Hanks of his obligations by way of the cease and desist letter and, to date, he has not complied with Zendar's request to return the information. The Court concludes Zendar has demonstrated it is reasonably likely to show Hanks misappropriated trade secrets and, in the alternative, serious questions exist about the merits of those claims.[1] See, e.g., Cutera, 2020 WL 1234551, at *6 (finding likelihood that defendants misappropriated information where forensic evidence showed information was downloaded from work devices to personal computers); Comet Techs., 2018 WL 1990226, at *4 (finding likelihood of showing misappropriation where defendant's conduct violated confidentiality agreement and defendant denied having devices containing the plaintiff's information but later conceded he took such devices before going to work for the plaintiff's competitor); Henry Schein, Inc. v. Cook, 191 F. Supp. 3d 1072, 1077 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (finding plaintiff likely to show defendant obtained trade secrets by improper means where she emailed and downloaded confidential information to personal devices in apparent violation of confidentiality agreement before leaving to work for a competitor). The Court acknowledges there is no evidence that Hanks has gone to work for a competitor, which distinguishes the facts of this case from the facts in Cutera, Comet Technologies, and Henry Schein. However, the Court finds the analysis set forth in those cases persuasive. In addition, in light of the evidence regarding Hanks' behavior following his termination, the Court concludes those facts do not alter the Court's conclusion on this factor. C. Balance of Equities. Zendar has shown that it has a strong interest in preventing the disclosure of the Company IP and other confidential information. Both Wang and Nagpal attest that if that information was publicly disclosed, “the entire value of [Zendar] could be compromised.” (Wang Decl., ¶ 29; Nagpal Decl., ¶¶ 3, 26.) By failing to oppose the request for a TRO, Hanks has not shown he would suffer any hardship if the Court granted Zendar's request. Cf. Pyro Spectaculars N., Inc. v. Souza, 861 F. Supp. 2d 1079, 1092 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (finding issuance of injunction would not pose undue hardship to defendant because injunction “would essentially only require him to abide by existing law regarding the unauthorized use of another's trade secrets”); see also Cutera, 2020 WL 1234551, at *8. For these reasons, the Court concludes the balance of equities tips sharply in Zendar's favor. D. Irreparable Harm. *5 Zendar also must show it is likely, rather than merely possible, that it will suffer irreparable harm absent an TRO. Winter, 555 U.S. at 21; see also Herb Reed Enters., LLC v. Fla. Entm't Mgmt., Inc., 736 F.3d 1239, 1249 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that finding of irreparable harm must be “grounded” in evidence, not platitudes). “[I]ntangible injuries, such as damage to ongoing recruitment efforts and goodwill, qualify as irreparable harm.” Rent-A-Center, Inc. v. Canyon Television & Appliance Rental, Inc., 944 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1991); see also Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 841 (9th Cir. 2001) (threatened loss of prospective customers or goodwill supports irreparable harm finding). In addition, disclosure of trade secrets can amount to irreparable harm. See WeRide v. Kun Huang, 379 F. Supp. 3d 834, 853 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (“Without an injunction, WeRide's trade secrets could be widely disclosed. A trade secret once lost is, of course, lost forever.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Zendar argues it is entitled to a presumption of irreparable harm because this case involves alleged trade secrets. Although the Ninth Circuit has not yet addressed the issue in this context, the Court is not persuaded that a presumption of irreparable harm is appropriate. In eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, the Supreme Court held the traditional four factor test applied in evaluating requests for injunction in patent cases and followed the approach it had taken in copyright cases, where it “consistently rejected invitations to replace traditional equitable considerations with a rule that an injunction automatically follows a determination that a copyright has been infringed.” 547 U.S. 388, 391-94 (2006). In Flexible Lifeline Systems, Inc. v. Precision Lift, Inc., the Ninth Circuit held that “presuming irreparable harm in a copyright infringement case is inconsistent with, and disapproved by, the Supreme Court's opinions in eBay and Winter.” 654 F.3d 989, 998 (9th Cir. 2011); see also Cutera, 2020 WL 1234551, at *7 (declining to apply presumption, but noting the Ninth Circuit has not yet addressed the issue in the context of trade secrets); V'Guara Inc. v. Dec, 925 F. Supp. 2d 1120, 1126 (D. Nev. 2013) (in light of Flexible Line declining to apply presumption in trade secrets case). At this point, it is not clear that Hanks has disclosed any of Zendar's trade secrets, and Wang, Nagpal, and Hathaway express their fears that Hanks may or could disclose the information. (Wang Decl., ¶ 29; Nagpal Decl., ¶ 26; Hathaway Decl., ¶ 24.) However, Zendar also puts forth evidence that Hanks stated he had done his damage and that Zendar would be punished for disabling his email. Zendar also submits evidence that suggests Hanks created a folder of confidential information that is entitled “chris/revenge.” (Nagpal Decl., ¶ 15; Wang Decl., ¶¶ 15, 19; Hathaway Decl., ¶¶ 12-13, Ex. B.) That evidence suggests Hanks intended to use the information to his advantage and to harm Zendar by exposing Company IP and confidential information. See, e.g., Cutera, 2020 WL 1234551, at *8 (finding irreparable harm where evidence suggested employees took confidential information to competitor); Comet Techs., 2018 WL 1990226, at *5 (finding that plaintiff's concerns about misuse of confidential information were “justifiably heightened based on defendant's conduct” in misrepresenting that he did not have confidential information). If the Company IP or other confidential information is publicly disclosed, it will lose its value and status a trade secret. See WeRide, 379 F. Supp. 3d at 853; V'Guara, 925 F. Supp. 2d at 1126. *6 In addition, according to Zendar, Hanks' actions impacted its ability to comply with a deliverable deadline for a critical customer. (Wang Decl., ¶¶ 9-10.) There also is evidence that he emailed investors disparaging Zendar,. Those actions show a likelihood of harm to Zendar's goodwill. Cf. Comet Techs., 2018 WL 1990226, at *5. Finally, Zendar also notes that its technology are subject to U.S. export controls. (Nagpal Decl., ¶ 9.) Improper disclosure of the Company IP and confidential information also presents a risk that Zendar could be held liable for violations of those controls. Accordingly, the Court concludes Zendar has shown a likelihood of irreparable harm. E. Public Interest. The Court also concludes that Zendar has shown that the public interest would be served if the Court granted the request for a TRO. See, e.g., Henry Schein, 191 F. Supp. 3d at 1078 (“Public interest is also served by enabling the protection of trade secrets.”) F. Bond. Zendar argues that no bond should be required because it is unlikely that a TRO would cause Hanks damage. Zendar also cites to the fact that in the CIAA, Hanks agreed that Zendar could seek injunctive relief “without the necessity of posting a bond or other security[.]” (Hanks CIAA ¶ 11(f).) Based on Hanks' failure to oppose the motion, the Court concludes a bond is not required. See also Henry Schein, 191 F. Supp. 3d at 1078 (granting TRO with no bond where defendant agreed that defendant could seek injunctive relief without a bond). G. Requests for Relief and Expedited Discovery. Zendar asks for an injunction that would require Hanks to return all of Zendar's trade secrets and confidential information and to preserve all evidence. The Court concludes Zendar has shown good cause to obtain that relief. See, e.g., Comet Techs., 2018 WL 1990226, at 6 (noting parties have a duty to preserve evidence once a complaint is filed); OOO Brunswick Rail Mgmt. v. Sultanov, No. 17-cv-000170-EJD, 2017 WL 67119, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2017) (setting forth factors to consider stricter preservation requirements). Zendar also asks for expedited discovery and, as part of that discovery, to permit it to create clones of a broad range of Hanks' personal mobile devices and computers. The Court concludes that Zendar has shown good cause to engage in limited discovery to enable it to determine the scope of Hanks' intrusion into its systems, including taking Hanks' deposition. See, e.g., Comet Techs., 2018 WL 1990226, at *7. Although Hanks did not respond Zendar's application for a TRO, he has not yet appeared, and counsel has not appeared on his behalf. Zendar's request for cloning would amount to a “significant intrusion into [Hanks'] personal data[.]” Henry Schein, 191 F. Supp. 3d at 1079.[2] At this juncture, the Court concludes Zendar has not shown good cause for the broad forensic examination it seeks, and it denies that request without prejudice. CONCLUSION TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, pending a hearing on the Order to Show Cause set forth below, Defendant, Christopher Hanks, and any other person or entity participating with or acting for, or on behalf of, or in concert with Hanks, are temporarily enjoined and restrained (or otherwise required): 1. From directly or indirectly accessing, by any means, any and all of Zendar's computer systems; 2. From using, disclosing, or making available to any person or entity other than Plaintiff, any of Zendar's confidential, proprietary, or trade secret documents, data, or information; *7 3. From using, disclosing, or making available to any person or entity other than Plaintiff, employee credentials to access any and all of Zendar's proprietary computer systems; 4. From directly or indirectly violating or interfering with the confidentiality obligations of his agreements with Zendar; 5. From altering, destroying, or disposing of any evidence or other materials, in any form, relating to this action and the issues raised herein, including, without limitation, all electronic media, cloud storage, and all copies of any and all documents, media, and/or other materials containing, identifying, describing, reflecting, or referencing Zendar's confidential, proprietary, or trade secret information, as well as any and all documents, data and information which was obtained by Hanks from, or by virtue of his employment with, Zendar, including all current or archived media, emails, chats, texts, documents, electronic logs, metadata, storage and directories; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Hanks shall return to Zendar, through Zendar's counsel, all copies of all documents, materials, and other media, whether in paper form or in an electronic medium, containing Zendar's confidential, proprietary, or trade secret information that Hanks possesses or has in his custody or control. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT unless the parties agree to an extension, the TRO will expire on June 24, 2020, to allow for the limited discovery contemplated by this Order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2) (“The order expires at the time after entry -- not to exceed 14 days-- that the court sets, unless before that time the court, for good cause, extends it for a like period or the adverse party consents to a longer extension.”). PRESERVATION ORDER AND ORDER GRANTING EXPEDITED DISCOVERY IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Hanks, and all those acting in concert or participation with him, shall, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1), immediately preserve all documents, data, tangible things, and other materials relating to this case, including, without limitation, emails, data, data bases, cloud storage, and paper and electronic data and documents, including any and all metadata, and shall take all steps necessary to do so. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Zendar may request discovery on an immediate expedited basis regarding the following subjects: 1. The company property Hanks took from Zendar, including the trade secret and confidential information that is the subject of this action; 2. The current location of any Zendar property taken by Hanks, including the trade secret and confidential information that is the subject of this action; 3. Whether, when, and what trade secret and confidential information Hanks has disclosed to any third party; and 4. Whether and what trade secret and confidential information Hanks is himself using. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Zendar is permitted to take Hanks' deposition, which shall be limited to four (4) hours and which shall not limit Zendar's ability to fully depose Hanks at a later date pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30. The deposition shall be completed no later than June 5, 2020. All parties shall serve responses to written discovery requests no later than ten (10) days after service. *8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Zendar shall file a renewed motion for a preliminary injunction by June 9, 2020. Hanks shall file an opposition by June 16, 2020, and Zendar may file a reply by June 19, 2020. The Court will hold a hearing on the motion on June 24, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. by teleconference. The access information is 1-888-684-8852 and the password is 8583698#. IT IS SO ORDERED. Footnotes [1] In light of the focus of the requested relief, which pertains to the disclosure of the Company IP and confidential information, the Court does not address whether Zendar is likely to succeed on the remaining claims. [2] The defendant in Henry Schein apparently received notice of the TRO by email, but the court issued the order on an ex parte basis. 191 F. Supp. 3d at 1075.