Armour v. Wilson, 2:12-cv-00851

Plaintiffs Armour and Chase seek a TRO against Rebecca Wilson for alleged unlawful interception of electronic communications and access to private online accounts.
Wilson is Armour’s ex-wife; plaintiffs allege she installed spyware on the family laptop to monitor communications and accounts.
Evidence suggests Wilson accessed Armour's investment account and changed his email address, and learned his medical treatment details.
Chase alleges Wilson accessed her licensing information and reactivated her social media and accessed her credit reports.
Plaintiffs seek to prohibit interception, account access, and use of information, and to preserve evidence; notice to Wilson is not yet given.
Court grants TRO and schedules a hearing to determine whether to convert to a preliminary injunction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a TRO is warranted under the applicable standard	Armour/Chase show likelihood of success over merits	Wilson would oppose without notice and challenge likelihood of success	TRO granted based on likelihood of success and irreparable harm
Whether there is likelihood of irreparable harm if not granted	Disclosures of private medical and other sensitive information cause irreparable harm	No specific evidence of irreparable harm if TRO not issued	Yes, irreparable harm shown
Whether the balance of hardships favors plaintiffs	Hardships to plaintiffs from disclosure outweigh defendant's interests	No clear hardship to Wilson from injunctive controls	Balance favors plaintiffs
Whether public interest supports TRO	Public interest in protecting private information	Not argued by Wilson here	Public interest supports TRO

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (establishes four-factor test for preliminary injunction/TRO including irreparable harm)
Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) (serious questions on merits can satisfy some elements when balance tips sharply)