Washington Court Denies TRO Against Chief Software Architect

Posted: Friday, October 24, 2008

By: David M. Kight

Topic: Temporary Restraining Order

On October 20, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington denied a TRO sought by a technology company against a key former employee.  Atigeo, LLC v. Jonas, Slip Copy, 2008 WL 4643811 (W.D. Wash. 2008). 

Jonas was employed by Atigeo as its chief software architect until terminated on April, 23, 2008.  Jonas had signed two agreements with Atigeo which transferred the intellectual property he developed while employed there and which contained a two year non-compete agreement

On the day of his termination, Jonas sent an e-mail to more than 100 customers, potential customers, business contacts, investors, and other persons with relationships to the company.  In the e-mail he stated that one of his employment agreements was void and disputed Atigeo’s ownership of intellectual property.   Jonas also reportedly kept two laptops from his employment which the company claimed contained confidential information.

Following the e-mail, the employer sued and sought an ex-parte (without notice) TRO.  The court denied the motion.  The employer then waited four months and sought a renewed TRO – essentially seeking a new hearing but without a new showing of proof other than speculative claims.  The Court ultimately denied the TRO request finding that the party with the burden of proof – the company – had failed to provide sufficient evidence beyond mere speculation. 

Key:      This case is a key reminder that you should always consider whether or not you have enough evidence to seek a TRO.  A TRO filing essentially requires you to put all your cards on the table, and that can be hard in this type of case before discovery has occurred.  Frequently you are proceeding with assumptions and guesses, without proof.