SUPREME COURT -STATE OF NEW YORKSHORT FORM ORDERPresent:

HON. TIMOTHY S. DRISCOLLJustice Supreme Court

------------------------------------------------------------------- J(

RYAN PIERCE GROUP, INC. andTOWER WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,

TRIAL/IAS PART: 22NASSAU COUNTY

Plaintiffs, IndeJ( No: 8956/10Motion Seq. No: 1Submission Date: 6/11110- against -

MICHAEL BROWN, DONALDJOHNSON, WILLIAM FURDOCK,SHANNA SMITH, TIMOTHY DOWNS,and THOMAS NYIRI,

Defendants.------------------------------------------------------------------- J(

The following papers have been read on this Order to Show Cause:

Order to Show Cause and Exhibit.......................................................................Affirma tio n of A. Friedman.............................................................................. ...Affidavit in Support of V. Hreljanovic................................................................Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support......................................................Affidavit in Opposition of S. Smith and EJ(hibit........................................Affidavit in Opposition of P. Rolph and EJ(hibit (Affidavit in Oppositionof W. Fu rd ock)........................................................ ...............................................Affdavit in Opposition of A. Sheridan and EJ(hibits which includeAffidavits in Opposition ofM. Brown, D. Johnson and T. Downs...............Memorandum of Law in Opposition....................................................................

This matter is before the Cour for decision on the Order to Show Cause filed by

Plaintiffs Ryan Pierce Group, Inc. and Tower West Communications, Inc. on May 7 2010 , and

submitted on June 11 2010. For the reasons set fort below, the Cour denies Plaitiffs ' Order

to Show Cause , except that the Cour directs all Defendants to retu to Plaintiffs any items in

their possession, including but not limited to computers, telephones, Blackberres, and tools,

provided by or received from RPG and TWC in the course of their employment at RPG and

TWC, within thirt (30) days ofthis Decision. The Cour vacates the Temporar Restraining

Order issued on May 10 2010.

BACKGROUND

A. Relief Sought

Plaintiffs Ryan Pierce Group, Inc. ("RPG") and Tower West Communcations, Inc.

TWC") (collectively "Plaintiffs ) move, pursuant to CPLR 7101 and 6313 , for an Order

1) restraining and enjoining Defendants Michael Brown ("Brown ) and Donald Johnson

Johnson ) from performing and soliciting any work directly or indirectly for Clearwire

Communications ("Clearire ) either as a direct contractor or subcontractor; 2) restraining and

enjoining all Defendants from working, whether directly or indirectly, for any person or

corporation that is in direct competition with RPG and TWC; 3) restraining and enjoining all

Defendants from having any contact with any employee curently working for RPG and TWC;

4) restraining and enjoining all Defendants from offering employment to any employee curently

working for RPG and TWC; 5) restraining and enjoining all Defendants from continuing to

employ all former RPG and TWC employees whom Defendants allegedly induced to abandon

their positions at RPG and TWC; 6) requiring all Defendants immediately to retu any propert

provided by or received from RPG and TWC in the course of their employment at RPG and

TWC; 7) requiring all Defendants to retur all propert allegedly retained by RPG and TWC

employees whom Defendants allegedly improperly induced to abandon their positions at RPG

and TWC; 8) restraining and enjoining all Defendants from altering, deleting, defacing and

tapering with data files stored electronically on telephones, computers or other electronic

devices or in physical hard copies on equipment provided by RPG or TWC or used in the

business ofRPG or TWC; 9) restraining and enjoining Defendant Thomas Nyiri ("Nyiri") from

disclosing any program information concernng or relating to RPG' s and TWC' s business,

including online and field training manuals and modules; 10) requiring Defendant Brown to

appear for a deposition on May 12 2010 and provide certin documents set fort on Exhbit A to

the Order to Show Cause; and 11) requiring Defendant Donald Johnson ("Johnson ) to appear

1 This request for relief is unclear; the Cour has attempted to glean from the sUIounding language therelief sought by Plaintiffs.

for a deposition on May 13 , 2010 and provide the docwnents set fort on Exhibit A to the Order

to Show Cause.

B. Prior Cour Orders

On May 10 2010 , the Cour granted in par and denied in par Plaintiffs ' application for

injunctive relief pending the detennination of this motion. Specifically, the Cour issued a

Temporar Restraining Order ("TRO") that directed that, pending fuer Order of the Cour

1) all Defendants are restrained and enjoined from having any business-related contact with any

employee curently working for RPG and TWC; 2) all Defendants are restrained and enjoined

from offering employment to any person or employee curently working for RPG and TWC;

3) all Defendants are required to immediately retu any propert provided by or received from

RPG and TWC in the course of their employment at RPG and TWC; 4) all Defendants are

restrained and enjoined from altering, deleting, defacing and tapering with data fies stored

electronically on telephones , computers or other electronic devices or in physical hard copies on

equipment provided by RPG or TWC or used in the business ofRPG or TWC; and 5) Defendant

Nyiri is restrained and enjoined from disclosing any program infonnation concerning or relating

to RPG' s and TWC' s business, including any online and field trainng manuals and modules.

C. The Paries ' History

The Verified Complaint ("Complaint") alleges as follows:

RPG and TWC are Florida corporations with their principal places of business at 60

Cutter Mil Road, Great Neck, New York. RPG and TWC are wholly owned subsidiares of

Juniper Group, Inc ("Juniper ). Plaintiffs are engaged in the business of constrcting and

upgrading cellular communications towers. They act as contractors and subcontractors to

cellular communcations providers and to other companies engaged in the business of

constructing or upgrading telecommuncation towers. Clearre, a cell communications upgrade

and construction project contractor, is RPG' s largest account.

Brown is Vice President for Operations ofRPG who allegedly attempted to tenninate his

position without notice, purortedly in violation of an oral contract, and "cease( d) to act in the

interests ofRPG, on April 2 , 2010" (Compl. at 6). Johnson is a Construction Project Manager

for RPG. Defendant Wiliam Furdock ("Furdock") was a Construction Project manager for

RPG. Defendant Shana Smith ("Smith") was employed by RPG as a Project Coordinator.

Defendant Timothy Downs ("Downs ) was a Constrction Project Manager for RPG. Nyiri is

the principal ofNyiri and Associates , an entity that provides infonnation technology consulting

and development services to RPG.

The Complaint alleges improper conduct by Defendants including but not limited to:

1) Brown pennitted RPG to star work on several Clearire projects ("Projects ) without first

securing required Purchase Orders ("POs ); 2) Brown improperly stopped work on the Projects

instead of directing a slowdown as directed by RPG, thereby alienating the Clearre Project

Manager; 3) despite accepting RPG' s compensation package and agreeing to continue work for

RPG, Brown abruptly resigned from his position with RPG; 4) Brown improperly deleted

infonnation from a Blackberr smarphone belonging to RPG; 5) Brown and Johnson solicited

an RPG work crew to abandon a Project; 6) Brown and Johnson solicited RPG employees and

project managers, including Furdock and Smith, to leave RPG and work for a new company

operated by Brown; and 7) Nyiri expressed his intention to pennit Brown to use a computerized

training program regarding the installation and use of Dragon Wave cellular technology that was

developed for RPG.

The Complaint contains four (4) counts 2 alleging 1) tortious interference with

employment relations by Brown and Johnson, 2) breach of fiduciar duty by all Defendants

3) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by all Defendants, and 4) unfair

competition by all Defendants.

In his Affdavit in Support dated May 7 , 2010, Vlado P. Hreljanovic ("Vlado ) afnns asfollows:

Vlado is the President of RPG and TWC, as well as the President of Juniper. Vlado

swears to the truth of the allegations in the Complaint, which the Cour has outlined supra and

outlines his personal knowledge of the Defendants ' allegedly improper conduct and its effect on

RPG. Vlado s affinnations regarding his personal knowledge and involvement include 1) his

ability to persuade Clearire to issue POs for some of the work that RPG perfonned, 2) Brown

statements to Vlado that Brown believed he could ear more money working for a different

company and was considering looking for a new job, and 3) Brown s oral acceptance of Via do

2 The Complaint mistakenly labels the second cause of action as the third cause of action; there are only

four (4) causes of action.

offer to remain with RPG and sudden resignation from RPG following that acceptace.

With respect to Plaintiffs ' allegations that Brown permitted RPG to star work on

Clearire Projects despite the absence ofPOs, Vlado affirms that he "deferred to Brown

insistence that the work should continue" (Vlado Aff. at 130). Vlado affirms, fuer, that in an

effort to avoid conflict with Clearwire and minimize the amount of unpaid work, he "instrcted

Brown to slow down the projects by slowly and systematically (emphasis in original) reducing

the size of the work crews on these projects" (Vlado Aff. at 132). Vlado , while conceding that

he directed Brown to reduce the size ofRPG' s work crews, submits that "Brown used ths

opportty to abruptly stop substantially all work on all of the projects immediately and at once

and lay off substantially all of the workers (emphasis in original)" (Vlado Aff. at 1 33).

Vlado also makes reference to numerous other incidents alleged in the Complaint but

does not specifically affirm his personal knowledge of these incidents. These include statements

regarding 1) charges on an RPG credit card (1146-48), 2) Brown and Johnson s alleged

involvement in an RPG crew s abandonment of a Clearre Project in North Carolina (11 52-

54), and 3) Brown and Johnson s alleged solicitation ofRPG employees and project managers to

work with Brown in a new company (11 57-58).

Defendants provide Affdavits in Opposition of Brown, Johnson, Smith, Furdock and

Downs.

Brown affirms as follows:

Brown denies Plaintiffs ' allegations that he worked in association with other Defendants

to establish a business that would compete with Plaintiffs. Rather, Brown affirms that he was an

at-will employee ofRPG, had not entered into any oral or wrtten employment agreement with

RPG, and resigned on April 2 , 2010. Brown also denies that he established a competing

company and affirms that he remained unemployed for almost a month after he left RPG.

May 3 2010 , Brown began working for a company called Maxton Technologies, Inc.

Maxton ) for which he had worked prior to joining RPG.

Brown outlines his employment history in the wireless communications industr and

afrms that his business relationship with Clearre and Maxton predated TWC' s association

with Clearire. Moreover, the project that Brown is curently working on for Maxton is in

geographical area that RPG does not service. Brown also denies being in possession of any

propert or confidential infonnation belonging to Plaintiffs.

Brown provides a copy of a letter from Vlado dated August 15 , 2009 (Ex. A to Brown

Aff.) in which Vlado offered Brown the position of Vice President of Juniper. Brown affisthat Vlado sent this letter to Brown while Brown was employed at Maxton, and avers fuer that

he was ultimately hired by RPG. Brown notes that Vlado ' s letter makes no reference to any

restrictive employment limitations or confidentiality provisions as a condition to the offer of

employment. In Januar of2010 , RPG provided Brown with a proposed employment

agreement. Brown rejected the proposal as written and sent a counterproposal to Vlado on

Februar 17, 2010 with a cover e-mail (Ex. B to Brown Aff.) that included the sentence "I have

attached a sumar of my notes and exceptions to the employment contract that you have

offered." Brown affnns that he and RPG never reached an agreement regarding the tenns of a

proposed employment contract.

Brown also afnns that, notwithstanding the tenns of a Master Service Agreement that

relieved Clearre of its obligation to pay for work in the absence of a PO, Vlado directed that

RPG begin work on a Clearre project without a PO. Brown provides e-mails (Ex. C to Brown

Aff.) that, he submits, demonstrate Vlado s appreciation of the risk that RPG would not be paid

for work perfonned in the absence of a PO and affinns that Vlado persisted in proceeding

without POs.

Brown recommended to Vlado that he reduce RPG' s workforce. In early March of2010

Vlado directed Brown to reduce RPG' s workforce to a greater extent than Brown suggested,

despite Brown s concern that this reduction could damage RPG' s relationship with Clearre.Brown provides e-mails regarding this issue (Ex. F to Brown Aff.) which includes an e-mail

dated March 4 2010 from Brown to Vlado which read as follows:

Vlado

I would like to follow up our telephone conversation yesterday afternoon.

You have instructed me to reduce our work force to 1 crew per market byCOB this Friday.

Please confinn by email that this is stil your intention and I wil proceed.

I want to make it clear that dismantling the company to this level may causeirreparable damage to vendor and client relationships.

Best regards(Brown J

Brown also denies Plaintiffs ' allegations regarding his allegedly improper removal of

certain infonnation from a company Blackberr. Brown afnns that he was in possession of an

RPG Blackberr afer he left RPG, and subsequently retured that Blackberr to RPG. Before

he retued the Blackberr to RPG, Brown erased his personal and family contacts, photographs

and account infonnation. Brown submits that RPG did not lose any proprietar infonnation and

intellectual propert because the contact and e-mail content of the Blackberr should stil be

available to RPG because it was linked to RPG' s shared e-mail server. Brown affnns that he is

not in possession of any equipment or materials belonging to Plaintiffs.

Brown also affinns that, since the tennination of his employment with RPG, he has not

encouraged any employee to leave RPG or TWC. Moreover, he is not responsible for the hingand firing of employees at Maxton, as Maxton s Human Resources Deparment handles those

matters. Brown submits that RPG and TWC' s loss of employees may be attibutable to 1) RPG

and TWC's recent decision to require employees to enter into restrctive employment contracts

and 2) RPG and TWC' s delay in paying employee salares.

Brown also affinns that he is unaware of RPG developing any softare as a training

safety tool, as Plaintiffs allege. Brown denies being in possession of any equipment or

Dragonware softare belonging to RPG.

Johnson afnns as follows:

Johnson worked as a constrction manager and foreman for Plaintiffs as an at-will

employee who was not subject to any contractual non-competition or confidentiality limitations.

Johnson left his employment with Plaintiffs on April 29, 2010 and began working for Maxton

for whom Johnson previously worked. Johnson is not involved in soliciting business for

Maxton.

Johnson denies soliciting any employees of Plaintiffs or otherwse interfering with

Plaintiffs ' operations. Johnson stopped working for Plaintiffs because Vlado failed to

compensate him properly for his services.

Johnson affinns that he has been working in the wireless communication field since

1989, during which time he established numerous contacts with companes including Clearre.He obtained his employment with Maxton as a result of a conversation with an individua who

has been a long-standing friend and colleague of Johnson. Johnson also denies soliciting

Plaintiffs ' work crews to leave the employment of Plaintiffs. Finally, Johnson denies being in

possession of any propert, equipment or proprietar or confidential information belonging to

Plaintiffs.

Smith affirms that she worked from RPG and TWC from September of 2009 to April of

2010. Smith avers inter alia that 1) in April of201O , she paricipated in a conference call

during which Vlado advised certain RPG employees that the number of work crews were going

to have to be cut drastically and other employees advised Vlado that they disagreed with thscourse of action; 2) on April 28 , 2010, RPG and TWC circulated an e-mail that advised all

employees that they would be required, within one week, to sign a non-compete agreement to

retain their employment; 3) Smith is unaware of any company that Brown or Johnson has formed

that is working for Maxton as a sub-contractor; 4) she has not yet received payment for her last

week of employment with Plaintiffs; 5) in her resignation letter to RPG/TWC, Smith agreed to

retur all equipment, including a Blackberr and laptop computer, when Plaintiffs provided her

with a pre-paid shipping label with her final check; Plaintiffs have not provided Smith with the

requested shipping label; and 6) she was never involved in any agreement with the Defendants to

usur any corporate opportunities properly belonging to Plaintiffs.

Furdock affrms inter alia that 1) his employment with Plaintiffs was never subject to a

confidentiality or restrictive employment covenant; 2) he stopped working for RPG on May 2

2010 for several reasons including concerns about his job security and information he received

about certain employees not receiving their paychecks; 3) after he left on May 2 2010, he

unoaded certain electronic equipment and tools belonging to Plaintiffs and placed those itemsinto secure locations belonging to Plaintiffs; 4) he later discovered other items belonging to

Plaintiffs , consisting of bolt cutters and a Verizon computer access card, which he has deliveredto his attorney to retur to Plaintiffs; and 5) he is not in possession of any propert that RPG orTWC provided to him during his employment.

Downs affrms inter alia that 1) during his brief employment by Plaintiffs, he was never

subject to any confidentiality or restrictive employment covenant; 2) he never solicited any

employee to cease working for Plaintiffs; 3) he does not possess any propert or confdential orproprietar information belonging to Plaintiffs; 4) he was never involved in the preparation or

submission of POs; 5) in March of 20 1 0 , he received an e-mail advising him that Vlado decided

to reduce drastically the staff working on Clearire Projects; 6) he spoke with Brown only once

after he stopped working for Plaintiffs, regarding a matter unelated to business; 7) he leared

that a stop payment order had been issued as to his April 30, 2010 paycheck from Plaintiffs, and

Plaintiffs owed him approximately $4 500 in unpaid salar and uneimbursed expenses; and

8) he does not possess any propert or information belonging to Plaintiffs, as he previously

retued to Plaintiffs all tools and equipment that were in his possession.

D. The Paries ' Positions

Plaintiffs submit that it has demonstrated its right to injunctive relief by demonstrating

1) its likelihood of success on the merits by establishig, inter alia a) Brown s securing work

for a new company after he orally accepted RPG' s offer to remain employed by that entity,

b) Brown and Johnson s involvement in persuading RPG crew members to abandon work on an

RPG Project and inducing RPG employees to leave RPG and join Brown s new company, and

2) irreparable har to Plaintiff without injunctive relief because of the danger ofRPG losing the

balance of its work from Clearire.

Defendants oppose Plaintiffs ' application , submitting that the documentation before the

Cour establishes that 1) the Defendants were not subject to restrctive covenants in connection

with their employment by Plaintiffs; 2) Brown and Johnson had a prior relationship with

Maxton, the company for which they worked afer leaving Plaintiffs; 3) Plaintiffs have provided

no credible proof of their allegation that Brown, Johnson or Downs actively solicited curentemployees of Plaintiffs to terminate their employment relationships with Plaintiffs; 4) Plaintiffs

have not provided proof that Brown, Johnson and Down have proprieta materials or propertof Plaintiffs that they are using for their own benefit; and 5) even if Plaintiffs have proprietamaterials of Plaintiffs, it is unlikely that these materials qualify as trade secrets in light of

Brown, Johnson and Downs ' extensive knowledge regarding the workings of the wireless

communications servicing and construction industry. Thus, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a

likelihood of success on the merits.

Defendants also submit that Plaintiffs have not demonstrated irreparable har without

injunctive relief, noting that Plaintiffs have provided no support for their claims that their

reputation with Clearre has been adversely affected by Defendants ' alleged conduct , or that

Plaintiffs are in danger of losing the balance of their work for Clearre. Defendants make

reference to 1) a press release issued by Juniper on May 19 2010 (Ex. 6 to Sheridan Aff.), titled

Juniper Group Anounces New Contract with Industr Leader " which discusses the award of a

substantial contract for tower modifications to a subsidiar of Juniper, and 2) a press release

dated May 14 , 2010 (Ex. 7 to Sheridan Aff.) titled "Juniper Group Rebuilding Continues;

Company Closes in on $1 Milion in Quarerly Revenues " which states that Juniper reported

nearly $1 milion in revenue for the first quarer of2010. In the latter press release, Vlado is

quoted as saying that "We wil do everying in our power to build on the positive trends which

stared in late 2009 and which we expect will continue thoughout the remainder of 20 10." In

light of the foregoing, even assuming that Plaintiffs have submitted evidence of har, they have

failed to establish that the har suffered is not compensable by money damages.

Finally, Defendants submit that the equities weigh in favor of Brown, Johnson and

Downs because the proposed injunctive relief would interfere with their ability to ear a living.

Defendants also submit that Plaintiffs have not provided support for their request that

they be permitted immediately to conduct the depositions of Brown and Johnson. Defendants

contend that Plaintiffs should be bound by the requirements of the CPLR regarding notice and

priority of depositions.

RULING OF THE COURT

Standards for Preliminar Iniunction

A preliminar injunction is a drastic remedy and wil only be granted if the movant

establishes a clear right to it under the law and upon the relevant facts set forth in the moving

papers. Wiliam M Blake Agency, Inc. v. Leon 283 AD.2d 423 424 (2d Dept. 2001); Petersonv. Corbin

,,

275 AD.2d 35 36 (2d Dept. 2000). Injunctive relief will lie where a movant

demonstrates a likelihood of success on the merits, a danger of irreparable har uness theinjunction is granted and a balance of the equities in his or her favor.

Aetna Ins, Co. v. Capasso75 N. Y.2d 860 (1990); WT Grant Co. v. Srogi 52 N.Y.2d 496 517 (1981); Merscorp, Inc.

Romaine 295 AD. 2d 431 (2d Dept. 2002); Neos v. Lacey, 291 AD.2d 434 (2d Dept. 2002).

The decision whether to grant a preliminar injunction rests in the sound discretion of the

Supreme Court. Doe v. Axelrod 73 N.Y.2d 748 , 750 (1988); Automated Waste Disposal, Inc. Mid-Hudson Waste, Inc. 50 AD.3d 1073 (2d Dept. 2008); City of Long Beach v. SterlingAmerican Capital, LLC 40 A. 3d 902, 903 (2d Dept. 2007); Ruiz v. Meloney, 26 AD.3d 485(2d Dept. 2006).

Proof of a likelihood of success on the merits requires the movant to demonstrate a clear

right to relief which is plain from the undisputed facts. Related Properties, Inc. Town Bd. of

Town/Vilage of Harrison 22 AD.3d 587 (2d Dept. 2005); Abinanti Pascale 41 AD.3d 395

396 (2d Dept. 2007); Gagnon Bus Co. , Inc. Vallo Transp. Ltd 13 AD.3d 334, 335 (2d Dept.

2004). Thus , while the existence of issues of fact alone will not justify denial of a motion for a

preliminar injunction, the motion should not be granted where there are issues that subvert the

plaintiff s likelihood of success on the merits to such a degree that it canot be said that the

plaintiff established a clear right to relief. Advanced Digital Sec, Solutions, Inc. Samsung

Techwin Co" Ltd 53 A. 3d 612 (2d Dept. 2008), quoting Milbrandt Co. Grifn 1 AD.3d

327 328 (2d Dept. 2003); see also CPLR 6312(c).

A plaintiff has not suffered irreparable har waranting injunctive relief where its

alleged injuries are compensable by money damages. See White Bay Enterprises v. Newsday,

258 A.D.2d 520 (2d Dept. 1999) (lower cour' s order granting preliminar injunction reversed

where record demonstrated that alleged injuries compensable by money damages); Schrager

Klein 267 A.D.2d 296 (2d Dept. 1999) (lower cour' s order granting preliminar injunction

reversed where record failed to demonstrate likelihood of success on merits or that injures were

not compensable by money damages).

B. Other Relevant Principles

First, it is well settled that, absent an agreement establishing a fixed duration, an

employment relationship is presumed to be a hiring at wil , terminable at any time by either

par, for any reason or even for no reason. DeSimone v. Supertek, Inc. 308 A.D.2d 501 (2d

Dept. 2003), citing, inter alia, Lobosco v. New York Tel. Co./NYNEX 96 N. 2d 312 , 316

(2001).

Second, even when there is a restrictive covenant, where the employer s past orprospective customers ' names are readily ascertainable from sources outside its business , tradesecret protection wil not attach and their solicitation by the employee will not be enjoined. H &R Recruiters, Inc. v. Kirkpatrick 243 AD.2d 680 681 (2d Dept. 1997). A trade secret is any

formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is used in one s business , and

which gives him an opportunity to gain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use

it. Ashland Mgt v. Janian 82 N. 2d 395 , 407 (1993), citing Restatement of Torts Section 757

comment b. In deciding a trade secret claim, the cour should consider the following factors:

1) the extent to which the information is known outside of the business, 2) the extent to which it

is known by employees and others involved in the business, 3) the extent of measures taken by

the business to guard the secrecy of the information, 4) the value of the information to the

business and its competitors, 5) the amount of effort or money expended by the business in

developing the information, 6) the ease or difficulty with which the information could be

properly acquired or duplicated by others. Id.

C. Application of these Principles to the Instant Action

In light of inter alia 1) the absence of any non-compete or restrictive employment

agreement between Plaintiff and any of the Defendants, 2) the factual disputes regarding the

circumstaces under which Plaintiffs ' work force for Clearre Projects was reduced, and

documentar evidence suggesting that Vlado proposed and implemented that work force

reduction, 3) the numerous affrmations by Defendants regarding the reasons for their depare

from Plaintiffs, including concerns about salar and newly-implemented requirements that

employees execute restrctive employment agreements, 4) the absence of an affdavit from any

employee of Plaintiffs attesting to improper solicitation by Defendants, 5) the press releases

submitted by Defendants reflecting Plaintiffs ' financial viability, and 6) Plaintiffs ' failure to

demonstrate Defendants ' improper possession of proprietar information of Plaintiffs

paricularly in light of Defendants ' extensive experience in the cellular communcations field

which provided Defendants with access to relevant information from sources other than

Plaintiffs , the Cour concludes that Plaintiffs have not demonstrated their right to the requested

injunctive relief.

Accordingly, the Cour denies Plaintiffs ' Order to Show Cause , except that the Cour

directs all Defendants to retur to Plaintiffs any items in their possession, including but not

limited to computers, telephones, Blackberries, and tools, provided by or received from RPG

and TWC in the course of their employment at RPG and TWC , within thirt (30) days of ths

Decision. The Cour vacates the TRO. The Cour also denies Plaintiffs ' application for the

immediate depositions of Defendants Brown and Johnson.

All matters not decided herein are hereby denied.

This constitutes the decision and order of the Cour.

The Court reminds counsel for the paries of their required appearance before the Cour

on July 16 2010 at 9:30 a.

ENTER

DATED: Mineola, NY

June 18 2010

'-. ' . . .

HON. TIMOTHY S. DRISCOtL

ENTERIDJUN 28 20'0

SSAU COUNTY

lIuNn IlEAK'1 OP,ct