The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Richard J. Arcara Chief Judge United States District Court
On December 30, 2008, plaintiffs commenced this action alleging breach of an implied-in-fact contract, breach of a Non-Disclosure Agreement ("NDA") entered in 2007, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, promissory estoppel, breach of contract through a failure to remit payment of invoices, common-law defamation, false advertising and trade disparagement, and misappropriation of trade secrets. Along with the complaint, plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking the following forms of injunctive relief (Docket No. 5 at 30--31):
(1) Defendant [shall] be enjoined from substituting Plaintiffs' digital electronic rebreather controllers with the digital electronic rebreather controllers of third-parties or Defendant's own controllers in connection with contracts for the upgrade, maintenance, or delivery of rebreathers to the U.S. Navy;
(2) Defendant [shall] be enjoined from using, disclosing, or revealing any confidential and proprietary information belonging to Plaintiffs, including, but not limited to, Plaintiffs' trade secrets in its schematics used to create digital electronic rebreather controllers;
(3) Defendant [shall] be enjoined from making false and/or misleading statements concerning Plaintiffs' digital electronic rebreather controllers, or the design, manufacture, or quality thereof;
(4) That Defendant be required to undertake corrective measures for the false statements and misrepresentations made by Defendant concerning Plaintiffs and their digital electronic controller products, including but not limited to corrective advertising, and take any actions necessary to remedy and prevent any erroneous impression by the trade or public concerning the nature, characteristics or qualities of Plaintiffs' products arising from Defendant's statements, including but not limited to issuance of written correspondence retracting Defendant's false statements and misrepresentations made to the U.S. Navy;
(5) Defendant [shall] return to Plaintiffs any information or materials (such as schematics) belonging to Plaintiffs which are in Defendant's possession or under Defendant's control, in any format whatsoever (paper, electronic, or otherwise) and to provide certification that Defendant has retained no other materials or copies of materials in its possession or under its control;
(6) Defendant [shall] immediately preserve any information relating to the claims at issue in this litigation;
(7) An expedited discovery timeline [shall] be set so that this matter may quickly proceed to resolution;*fn1 and
(8) A hearing be set for the Court's consideration on entering a preliminary injunction.*fn2
The purpose of this Decision and Order is to determine whether a hearing will be necessary for each of the above requests for relief in plaintiffs' motion.
This case concerns a piece of diving equipment called an Underwater Breathing Apparatus ("UBA"), also known as a "rebreather." A rebreather is a backpack-like device that delivers oxygen during underwater diving. Like a SelfContained Underwater Breathing Apparatus ("SCUBA"), rebreathers allow divers to remain underwater for extended periods of time. Rebreathers are more efficient than SCUBA gear, however, because they feature a closed air circuit that recycles exhaled air. Exhaled air still contains a significant amount of oxygen. In SCUBA gear, that oxygen is lost when divers exhale the air into the surrounding water. In a rebreather, exhaled air passes through a closed-circuit system that removes carbon dioxide, restores consumed oxygen, and ...