Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

PPS Service Group, LLC v. Eckert

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division

August 20, 2019

PPS SERVICE GROUP, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
ADAM ECKERT, et al., Defendants.

          Barrett J.

          ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          Stephanie K. Bowman United States Magistrate Judge.

         This civil action is now before the Court on Plaintiff's motion to defer consideration of Defendant Roby's motion for Summary Judgment to Allow Time to Take Discovery (Doc. 39) and Defendant Roby's memorandum contra. (Doc. 42).

         I. Background and Facts

         Defendants are former employees of PPS. PPS provides nationwide landscaping, snow and ice removal, parking lot maintenance, and customized facility management services. Plaintiff alleges that while employed by PPS, Defendants used PPS's secret and proprietary customer lists and pricing information to establish a new company, REMS Nationwide Procurement, LLC (“REMS”).

         This litigation followed. (Verified Complaint ¶¶38-39.) Plaintiff has brought claims for misappropriation of trade secrets under the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA), 18 U.S.C. § 1831 et seq., and the Ohio Uniform Trade Secrets Act (OUTSA). Plaintiff has also brought claims for breach of a non-disclosure agreement and breach of fiduciary duty by Defendants.

         On January 29, 2019, Defendant Roby filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Rather than filing a response, Plaintiff submits the instant Motion for Rule 56(d) relief, seeking additional time to complete discovery before responding to Roby's Motion for Summary Judgment. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to complete written discovery, obtain documents from third parties, and conduct depositions.

         II. Analysis

         Rule 56(d) establishes the procedure to be followed when a party concludes that additional discovery is necessary to respond to a motion for summary judgment, and states in relevant part:

         When Facts Are Unavailable to the Nonmovant. If a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may:

(1) defer considering the motion or deny it;
(2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery; or
(3) issue any other appropriate ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.