Henry Schein, Inc. v. Cook, 191 F. Supp. 3d 1072

Background

HSI (medical/dental supply distributor) alleges former field sales rep Jennifer Cook downloaded and forwarded proprietary customer reports and accessed HSI systems immediately before and after resigning to join competitor Patterson Dental.
Cook signed a Confidentiality & Non‑Solicitation Agreement and a Letter Agreement requiring protection of HSI confidential information and prohibiting copying or taking materials on departure.
HSI alleges Cook emailed confidential customer practice reports to her personal account, used HSI’s FSC software and an iPad app to sync customer ordering data to her devices, deleted work emails, removed HSI ordering icons from customer PCs, and solicited customers for Patterson.
HSI filed suit asserting DTSA, CUTSA, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, UCL, § 502, and related claims, and sought an ex parte TRO and expedited discovery (forensic “mirror” images and subpoenas).
The Court found HSI likely to succeed on the merits, likely to suffer irreparable harm, and granted a narrow TRO enjoining Cook from accessing/using/disclosing HSI confidential information, violating confidentiality agreements, and soliciting her assigned HSI customers; ordered preservation of evidence; denied forensic imaging and expedited discovery without prejudice; no bond required.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether immediate TRO is warranted to prevent misappropriation of trade secrets and customer diversion	Cook downloaded and forwarded proprietary customer reports and accessed HSI systems to divert customers; immediate relief needed to prevent irreparable harm	(implicit) TRO is premature without hearing and imaging of personal devices is intrusive	TRO granted: enjoin access/use/disclosure of HSI confidential info and solicitation of assigned customers
Whether HSI showed likelihood of success on DTSA/CUTSA and contract claims	Evidence of downloading, emailing, agreements signed, and post‑resignation solicitations support misappropriation and breach	(implicit) facts disputed; defendant should be heard before intrusive remedies	Court: plaintiff likely to succeed on merits; supports TRO
Whether plaintiff demonstrated irreparable harm	Loss of customer relationships and proprietary customer data is imminent and hard to quantify	Defendant would be unduly burdened only if barred from lawful activity	Court: irreparable harm likely; favors TRO
Whether ex parte forensic imaging and expedited discovery are justified	Prior deletions and alleged destruction justify immediate mirror imaging and subpoenas to preserve evidence	Imaging of personal devices is a significant intrusion; Cook must be given chance to respond; preservation order and later discovery remedies suffice	Denied: forensic imaging and expedited discovery denied without prejudice; preservation order entered

Key Cases Cited

MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993) (customer sales history and preferences can be trade secrets)
Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2001) (loss of prospective customers or goodwill supports irreparable harm)
Tom Doherty Assocs., Inc. v. Saban Entm’t, Inc., 60 F.3d 27 (2d Cir. 1995) (irreparable harm exists where threatened loss is difficult to quantify)
Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for issuing preliminary injunctions/TROs)
Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) (serious questions plus balance sharply in plaintiff’s favor can support injunction alongside irreparable harm showing)
Leiva‑Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2011) (threshold showing required on each injunction factor)
U.S. v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258 (1947) (federal court may issue injunction to preserve status quo when jurisdiction disputed)
Am. Trucking Ass’ns v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2009) (four‑factor injunction test restated)