Governo Law Firm LLC v. CMBG3 Law LLC, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 12-004-17)
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT. 1684CV03949-BLS2 ____________________ GOVERNO LAW FIRM LLC v. CMBG3 LAW LLC and Others1 ____________________ MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION The Governo Law Firm LLC is suing six of its former partners and their new firm, which they call CMBG3 Law LLC. The Governo Firm is controlled by attorney David Governo. It specializes in defending clients against asbestos and toxic tort claims. During the summer and fall of 2016 David Governo and the seven other partners of the Governo Firm discussed and negotiated the possible sale by Governo of his interest in the firm to the other partners. When those negotiations were unsuccessful, six of the eight partners announced that they planned to leave to start their own firm. Governo then locked them out of the firm on November 20, 2016. The Governo Firm claims that the six individual defendants stole proprietary databases, electronic files or data, and computers that belong to the Governo Firm. Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction that would require Defendants to: return all electronic databases and files they allegedly took from the Governo Firm, except for any files that pertain to client matters for which CMBG3 has been retained to represent the client; return all laptop computers and iPads that belong to the Governo Firm; allow Plaintiff to permanently delete all of its data from Defendants’ cell phones; and require Defendants to certify compliance and also to disclose any Governo Firm property in their possession. The Court concludes that it must DENY the preliminary injunction request because the Governo Firm has not met its burden of proving that it will suffer irreparable harm without the requested injunction. 1. Legal Standards. “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 1 Jeniffer A.P. Carson, Bryna Rosen Misiura, Kendra Ann Bergeron, David A. Goldman, Brendan J. Gaughan, and John P. Gardella. – 2 – (2008). To the contrary, “the significant remedy of a preliminary injunction should not be granted unless the plaintiffs had made a clear showing of entitlement thereto.” Student No. 9 v. Board of Educ., 440 Mass. 752, 762 (2004). “Trial judges have broad discretion to grant or deny injunctive relief.” Lightlab Imaging, Inc. v. Axsun Technologies, Inc., 469 Mass. 181, 194 (2014). A plaintiff is not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief if it cannot prove that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim. See, e.g., Fordyce v. Town of Hanover, 457 Mass. 248, 265 (2010) (vacating preliminary injunction on this ground); Wilson v. Commissioner of Transitional Assistance, 441 Mass. 846, 858-859 (2004) (same). “[T]he burden of showing […]