Key Details:
- On September 23, 2024, Judge George H Wu of the U.S. District Court in California denied Move, Inc.’s motion for a preliminary injunction against CoStar Group.
- Judge Wu concluded Move had not demonstrated clear evidence of “likely and imminent, irreparable harm,” which is a necessary element for a preliminary injunction. Lacking that evidence, the court did not need to analyze the remaining three elements required for injunctive relief.
- The ruling is the latest development in Move’s lawsuit against CoStar for alleged data theft. The case concerns a former Move employee, James Kaminsky, who now works for CoStar Group and who allegedly stole proprietary information to help further the expansion of Homes.com.
The latest news on the lawsuit Move, Inc. filed against CoStar Group for alleged “data theft,” is a win for the defendant.
On Monday, September 23, 2024, Judge George H. Wu of the U.S. District Court in California denied Move’s motion for a preliminary injunction against CoStar, pointing to the absence of a key element required for injunctive relief.
From Judge Wu’s ruling:
“The Court is not persuaded that Move has demonstrated, with evidence, likely and imminent, irreparable harm, even if it can demonstrate past misappropriation at least on Kaminsky’s part…”
Since the plaintiff had not provided clear and incontestable evidence of that “likely and imminent irreparable harm,” the court did not have to analyze the remaining three prerequisite conditions for injunctive relief. If one was lacking, the motion was dead in the water.
“As such, the Court has no need to consider the defendants’ alternative arguments that Move’s alleged slow movement in seeking injunctive relief further demonstrates the absence of any imminent irreparable harm or that the information contained in the alleged trade secrets is ‘stale’ or ‘outdated,’ and therefore not at any risk of CoStar’s future use…
“Move has not made the ‘clear showing’ that it should be awarded the “extraordinary” and “drastic” remedy of a preliminary injunction. Move’s motion is denied.”
Read on for a closer look at the judge’s analysis.
Wu’s Analysis of Move’s Allegations, Evidence and Legal Reasoning
The court also limited expedited discovery in the case concerning the alleged “data-theft” by former Move employee James Kaminsky, who now works for CoStar. Move claims Kaminsky stole proprietary information to help his new employer, Homes.com, expand its business.
Judge Wu reviewed the allegations and criticized Move’s lack of any evidence proving the former employee’s alleged misconduct. He also found the company’s legal reasoning unconvincing.
As for Move’s efforts to show a threat of imminent harm from Kaminsky’s alleged data theft, Judge Wu deemed them unsupported due to insufficient evidence of the former employee’s wrongdoing. The judge faulted Move for failing to engage in discovery with Kaminsky, particularly around claims of a “mystery computer” potentially holding the sensitive information Kaminsky allegedly stole.
While the former employee’s initial statements contained inconsistencies, the judge deemed those “minor/trivial” and downplayed their relevance to Move’s case.
Stay tuned for further developments as the case progresses.
Read below for the full filing:
