Declaration

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.February 1, 2021

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WALTERS LAW GROUP Christopher L. Walters, Esq. (SBN 205510) 1901 First Avenue, Second Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 888-5759 Email: clw@walters-law-gr0up.com Attorneysfor Defendant KrzysztofSywula Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 5/11/2021 12:16 PM Reviewed By: K. Nguyen Case #21 CH009837 Envelope: 6419304 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ALEXIS DACOSTA, an individual Plaintiff, V. KRZYSZTOF SYWULA, an individual, Defendant. -1- Case No. 21CH009837 DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER L. WALTERS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA - VERIZON Date: May 25, 2021 Time: 9:00 am. Crtrm: 4 Judge: Hon. Erik S. Johnson DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER L. WALTERS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA-VERIZON 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I, Christopher L. Walters, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney licensed in the state of California. I am familiar with the facts set forth in this declaration and can testify as t0 the same if necessary. 2. I am counsel for Defendant Krzysztof Sywula in this matter. I also represent Mr. Sywula in another lawsuit pending between Mr. Sywula and Plaintiff, Alexis DaCosta, relating to Teleport Mobility - the company that Plaintiff DaCosta and Defendant Sywula co-own. That case is pending in the U.S. District Court - Northern District 0f California - Case N0. 3 :2 1 -CV-00874-SI and was filed 0n February 3, 2021. The plaintiffs in that case are Teleport Mobility, Inc. and Northern Lights, and Mr. Sywula is the defendant. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy 0f the Complaint filed in that matter. Mr. Sywula is a 49% co-owner 0f Teleport Mobility and also has an ownership interest in Northern Lights. Plaintiff’s TRO application contains a cease and desist letter from Teleport’s counsel, Frederic Ludwig, that Plaintiff DaCosta uses as an alleged factual basis for his TRO application. That cease and desist letter was used as a basis for the current Teleport Mobility/Northern Lights’s lawsuit against Defendant Sywula that is pending in the U.S. District Court - Northern District of California. Mr. Ludwig (Teleport Mobility’s and Northern Lights’s attorney in that matter) is also referenced in Defendant DaCosta’s motion t0 quash - Motion at Section II(B), p.3 as part 0f Plaintiff DaCosta’s alleged meet and confer efforts relating to the motion t0 quash. In that federal action, Plaintiffs filed an application for a temporary restraining order Which was granted only in party. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy 0f the ex parte application for a temporary restraining order; attached as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the court’s order regarding the restraining order. 3. As part 0f that federal action, I was ordered by the Court t0 provide Plaintiff s counsel (Mr. Frederic Ludwig) With an address for Defendant Sywula such that Plaintiffs could serve him with the complaint in that case. On March 12, 2021, I provided that address t0 Mr. Ludwig - a residence in Poland Where Mr. Sywula is and can be served. Thus, Ibelieve Plaintiff DaCosta is fully aware that Mr. Sywula is living in Poland and has the address 0f where t0 find him and serve him. 4. My office has expended the following time in researching, preparing, and drafting the -2- DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER L. WALTERS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA-VERIZON 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 opposition to Plaintiff DaCosta’s Motions to Quash: Attorney Brandon Willenberg - a 20-year attorney practicing in San Diego, California. He has experience in civil litigation matters in the areas 0f employment law, trade secrets, commercial contracts, and business disputes. He spent 6.2 hours researching, preparing, and drafting the opposition to Plaintiff” s motion t0 quash. His hourly rate is $425/hour. I spent 2.1 hours reviewing, revising, and finalizing the Oppositions. My paralegal, Dominic Giovanniello, spent 4.9 hours preparing these documents, filing them and preparing service copies Via Federal Express. These hours and rates are reasonable. I graduated from the University 0f Southern California School of Law in 1999. I am an experienced business litigation attorney and was a partner in two national/intemational law firms (Ross, Dixon & Bell and Troutman Sanders). My hourly rate for this matter is $475/hour which is reasonable in light 0f my experience and the rates charged by other business litigation attorneys in San Diego. Mr. Willenberg graduated from law school in 2001 and is an experienced business litigation attorney (including Senior Attorney at Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo). Mr. Willenberg’s hourly rate for this matter is $425/hour which is reasonable in light of his experience and the rates charged by other business litigation attorneys in San Diego. Mr. Giovanniello is an experienced, ABA certified, litigation paralegal Who has been practicing for 14 years. His hourly billing rate for this matter is $200/hour which is reasonable in light of his experience and the rates being charged by other paralegals in San Diego. I declare under the penalty 0f perjury under the laws of California that the foregoing is true and correct dated May 11, 2021 in San Diego, CA. s/Christopher L. Walters Christopher L. Walters -3- DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER L. WALTERS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA-VERIZON Exhibit A nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 1 Filed 02/03/21 Page 1 of 24 Frederic G. Ludwig, III (CA Bar No. 205332) eric.ludwig@1udwigiplaw.com Andrew J. Kubik (CA Bar N0. 246902) andrew.kubik@1udwigip1aw.com LUDWIG, APC 12463 Rancho Bernardo Road, No. 532 San Diego, California 92128 Telephone: 858-945-43 1 4 Attorneys for Plaintiffs TELEPORT MOBILITY, INC. and NORTHERN LIGHTS, LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION TELEPORT MOBILITY, INC., a Nevada corporation; and NORTHERN LIGHTS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiffs, V. KRZYSZTOF SYWULA, an individual, Defendant. Case No. 2 1 -CV-00874 COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COME NOW Plaintiffs TELEPORT MOBILITY, INC. a Nevada corporation (“TELEPORT MOBILITY”) and NORTHERN LIGHTS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“NORTHERN LIGHTS”), collectively (“Plaintiffs”), respectfillly submitting the following Complaint against Defendant KRZYSZTOF SYWULA, an individual (“SYWULA”) for misappropriation of trade secrets (in Violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1832-1836(b) and Cal. CiV. Code § 3246 et seq.), breach 0f contract, Violation 0f the Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (Cal. Penal Code § 502), Violation of the Lanham Act for trademark infringement and unfair competition (15 U.S.C. § 1125), conversion, intentional interference With contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair business practices (Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq), and declaratory relief: COMPLAINT Case N0. 2 1 -cv-00874 nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 1 Filed 02/03/21 Page 2 of 24 Introduction 1. TELEPORT MOBILITY and NORTHERN LIGHTS bring this lawsuit seeking damages and protection from SYWULA, who is engaged in a persistent, ongoing, intentional campaign to hijack Plaintiffs’ business, computer networks, and intellectual property. Through such acts, as further detailed herein, SYWULA is preventing Plaintiffs from continuing to operate their business or access, use, and enjoy their own property. Plaintiffs have warned SYWULA in writing that SYWULA is in Violation of the law, but SYWULA has not abated his conduct or relinquished control of Plaintiffs’ business, computer networks, and intellectual property. The Court should enter a judgment for damages against SYWULA and grant temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief, such that SYWULA does not further Violate Plaintiffs’ rights. The Parties 2. TELEPORT MOBILITY is, and at all times relevant t0 this action has been, a Nevada corporation, headquartered in San Diego County, California, With offices also located at 1292 Kifer Road, Suite 802, Sunnyvale, California 94086. TELEPORT MOBILITY is, and at all relevant times herein has been, in the business of developing real-time intelligent dispatching technology in the mobility industry in San Diego and Santa Clara Counties. 3. NORTHERN LIGHTS is, and at all times relevant to this action has been, a Delaware limited liability company, headquartered in San Diego County, California, with offices also located at 1292 Kifer Road, Suite 802, Sunnyvale, California 94086. NORTHERN LIGHTS is, and at all relevant times herein has been, in the business 0f owning and licensing to others, including TELEPORT MOBILITY, real-time intelligent dispatching technology in the mobility industry. 4. Defendant SYWULA is an individual whose principal place 0f residence is located at 640 Epic Way, Unit 111, San Jose, California 95134-2787. 5. Third-party Alexis DaCosta is the president and owner of 50.8% of TELEPORT MOBILITY. Defendant SYWULA was formerly the secretary and treasurer 0f TELEPORT MOBILITY and currently owns approximately 45% of the company. /// 2 COMPLAINT Case No. 2 1 -cv-00874 nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 1 Filed 02/03/21 Page 3 of 24 6. TEELPORT MOBILITY owns 97% of NORTHERN LIGHTS, while DaCosta owns 2% of the business, and SYWULA owns the remaining 1%. Jurisdiction and Venue 7. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338 and 15 U.S.C. § 1 121, because it involves, among other things, claims arising under the Lanham Act. 8. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 9. The Court has personal jurisdiction over SYWULA because he resides in this District. Furthermore, SYWULA has engaged in substantial activity within California and this District and has substantial contacts there, having purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum. SYWULA has caused injury to Plaintiffs within California and within this District. 10. Venue is proper in this judicial District pursuant t0 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because SYWULA resides in this District and substantial part of the events and/or omissions giving rise t0 Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this District. The Facts A. TELEPORT MOBILITY BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY. 1 1. Based in California, and founded by DaCosta and third-party Vince Coletti in 20 1 6, TELEPORT MOBILITY is an industry-leading innovator in real-time intelligent dispatching technology in the mobility industry. The company creates unique, proprietary maps and logistics, providing different software and software-as-a-service (“SaaS”) solutions for various perspectives within relevant sectors. TELEPORT MOBILITY connects the demand for transportation with the mobility supply to optimize vehicle utilization and efficiently transport people and products. With TELEPORT MOBILITY, consumers make informed decisions when purchasing mobility services, drivers/client can select a preferred route, and shipping companies maximize efficiencies when transporting goods, all while simultaneously providing users up-to-the-minute vehicle location and tracking data, aggregated among disparate platforms. 3 COMPLAINT Case No. 2 1 -cv-00874 nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 1 Filed 02/03/21 Page 4 of 24 12. The company enjoys a robust portfolio of intellectual property rights. DaCosta, himself, along with Northern Lights, LLC, owns the entire right, title, and interest in and to the inventions claimed in United States Application Nos. 16/222,817; 15/680,439; 16/038,487; 15/675,757; 62/539,706; 62/482,306; 62/426,549; 62/375,491; and 17/124,833, in addition to related international patent applications filed in the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) in accordance with the Patent Cooperation Treaty (“PCT”), Application Nos. PCT/USl8/043363 and PCT/USIS/O43359, Which have entered into national and regional phases in Australia, Canada, China, Singapore, and the European Patent Office (“EPO”) (collectively, the “patents”). TELEPORT MOBILITY licenses rights to the patents from Northern Lights and DaCosta. 13. In addition, the company owns the entire right, title, and interest in and to all copyright material embodied in certain software programs, including without limitation those entitled “BlueKiwi (Version A),” “BlueKiwi (Version B),” “Black Lotus,” “Xelerate,” and “Xelerate Demo” (collectively, the “software” or the “works”). 14. The four of the U.S. patent applications and the two PCT applications have been published and are Within the public record. However, TELEPORT MOBILITY has not published or publicly disclosed, performed, 0r displayed the software. As a result, the confidential programs, code, methods, techniques, processes, UMLs, diagrams, and data, as well as the scientific, technical, and engineering information, expressed in and/or related to the software, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, and procedures, have been the subject of strict measures by TELEPORT MOBILITY and NORTHERN LIGHTS to maintain the secrecy of such information (collectively, “Technical Information and Know-How”). 15. TELEPORT MOBILITY also creates, compiles, and retains certain other financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, 0r engineering information, including business and marketing plans, sales and customer data and lists, vendor and supply information, sales forecasts, market forecasts, current investor information, prospective investor information, patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, 4 COMPLAINT Case No. 2 1 -cv-00874 nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 1 Filed 02/03/21 Page 5 of 24 procedures, programs, and codes, which information it also keeps secret (collectively, “Business Information”). 16. Together, the Technical Information and Know-How and Business Information constitute TELEPORT MOBILITY’s “trade secret” information because it derives independent economic value, both actual and potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by, another person who can obtain economic value from the disclosure or use of the information. 17. TELEPORT MOBILITY owns all right, title, and interest in and t0 the marks TELEPORT and TELEPORT MOBILITY, as claimed in the pending applications for registration of the marks With the USPTO: TELEPORT (U.S. Serial No. 88/261,127), for use in International Class 009, 035, and 042 With software and related business services; and TELEPORT MOBILITY (U.S. Serial No. 88/261,151), likewise for use in International Class 009, 035, and 042 With software and related business services (collectively, the “‘marks”). 18. TELEPORT MOBILITY first used the marks in commerce at least as early as February 8, 2019 for purposes 0f marketing, advertising, promoting and selling the software and its SaaS and consulting services to others, including real-time intelligent dispatching technology real-time intelligent dispatching technology for the mobility industry. TELEPORT MOBILITY’s use of the marks in the United States has been in continuance since the date of first use. 19. TELEPORT MOBILITY invested, and continues t0 invest, substantial time, effort and financial resources promoting the marks in connection With the marketing and sale 0f its software and services in interstate commerce. The TELEPORT and TELEPORT MOBILITY marks have become, through Widespread and favorable public acceptance and recognition, an asset 0f substantial value as a symbol 0fTELEPORT MOBILITY, its quality products and services, and its goodwill. The consuming public recognizes the marks and associate them with TELEPORT MOBILITY. The marks are inherently distinctive as applied to TELEPORT MOBILITY’S goods and services bearing such marks. /// /// 5 COMPLAINT Case No. 2 1 -cv-00874 nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 1 Filed 02/03/21 Page 6 of 24 B. CONCEPTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF TELEPORT MOBILITY BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY. 20. More than five years ago, DaCosta and Coletti first conceived the idea 0f building a business that offered users a single, simple, comprehensive way to facilitate and obtain ride-share services, among multiple vendors. In late February 2016, they constructed the initial business plan. The idea grew and matured over the next several months with guidance and input from legal and subject-matter experts. The founders sought intellectual property counsel With Attorney David Preston in March 2016. Soon thereafter, DaCosta and Coletti approached SYWULA for purposes of gauging his interest in advising 0n the proj ect. 21. From this initial contact, DaCosta and Coletti eventually engaged SYWULA’S services as a consultant, pursuant to that certain Consulting Agreement, dated August 22, 2016 (the “Consulting Agreement”). See Exhibit A.1 22. Under the terms of this contract, SYWULA was t0 receive a small share of equity in whatever entity DaCosta and Coletti established for the business, in exchange for SYWULA’s assistance with technical support and developing software code. On top of bilateral confidentiality obligations contained in the contract, SYWULA also agreed not to compete with the company and that “[a]ny intellectual property, including patents, copyrights, trademarks or trade secrets arising under this Agreement shall be assigned t0 [DaCosta and Coletti].” Id., 11 6. 23. Nearly two years later, SYWULA, DaCosta, and Coletti formed the Xelerate Partnership, pursuant to an April 7, 2018 agreement of the same name (the “Xelerate Partnership Agreement”). 24. The objective of Xelerate Partnership was to “develop and sell or monetize intellectual property ....” Xelerate Partnership Agreement, 11 3. SYWULA’S specific responsibilities to Xelerate mirrored those 0f the Consulting Agreement; assisting in the drafting of patent applications and developing software code. Id., 11 5(C). 25. In November 2018, Coletti resigned from active participation in Xelerate and 1 Attached hereto as Exhibit A is the January 31, 2021 Cease-and-Desist letter from Plaintiffs to SYWULA. A11 agreements and correspondence between Plaintiffs and SY WULA referenced herein are attached to Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. 6 COMPLAINT Case No. 2 1 -cv-00874 nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 1 Filed 02/03/21 Page 7 of 24 became a limited partner (“Xelerate Amendment to Partnership”). 26. SYWULA’S role With Xelerate remained the same. Xelerate Amendment t0 Partnership,fl 1-4. Concurrent with Coletti’s exit, he and DaCosta assigned their entire right, title, and interest in and t0 their pending patent applications to DaCosta and Xelerate. 27. As the business grew, SYWULA and DaCosta transitioned from partners in Xelerate to shareholders 0f TELEPORT MOBILITY. On or about July 12, 2019, the two formed the company under the laws ofNevada, with its headquarters in San Diego. Xelerate and DaCosta then assigned their entire right, title, and interest in and t0 their pending patent applications t0 DaCosta and TELEPORT MOBILITY. 28. SYWULA then assumed the role of secretary and treasurer for TELEPORT MOBILITY and became a company employee, signing the Teleport Mobility, Inc. Employee Proprietary Information and Inventions Agreement 0n November 19, 2019 (the “Employee Agreement”). 29. As with the 2016 Consulting Agreement, the Employee Agreement imposed strict confidentiality, non-disclosure, and invention and copyright assignment obligations upon SYWULA. Excluded from the invention assignment provisions were any “Prior Inventions” SYWULA conceived, for Which he listed none. Through subsequent third-party investments, SYWULA’s equity stake in TELEPORT MOBILITY was (and still is) approximately 45% and DaCosta’s was (and still is) between 49% - 50.8%. 30. Even before SYWULA executed the Consulting Agreement, DaCosta provided SYWULA with detailed schematics, flowcharts, and other materials directed to the development and implementation 0f the ideas that would become TELEPORT MOBILITY’S software and attendant inventions. Indeed, at least as early as May 2016 and continuing regularly thereafter, SYWULA was privy to the myriad iterations and developments of TELEPORT MOBILITY’s emerging, confidential, proprietary technology and components thereof, as evidenced by the countless email and text message communications from and among DaCosta, Coletti, Attorney Preston, and SYWULA. While SYWULA’S engagement pursuant t0 the Consulting Agreement required him t0 assist in the drafting of the applications for the patents and code the software, 7 COMPLAINT Case No. 2 1 -cv-00874 nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 1 Filed 02/03/21 Page 8 of 24 SYWULA’s contributions did not rise to the level 0f conception in a significant manner of any aspect of the inventions claimed in the patents. Rather, SYWULA’S work entailed following instructions from DaCosta and Coletti on an ad hoc basis, offering technical support, and suggesting end results. C. SYWULA CLAIMS OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL 0F TELEPORT MOBILITY AND ITS TECHNOLOGY. 31. The question of inventorship became a point of contention in late 2020, ultimately leading to the present dispute. During a series 0f meetings between November 17 - 19, 2020, SYWULA and DaCosta sat down with Attorney Eleanor Musick, for purposes of discussing the pending applications for the patents. When DaCosta explained the nature and extent of Coletti’s contributions t0 the inventions claimed in the patents in comparison t0 SYWULA’s own, SYWULA became visibly upset. Specifically, DaCosta informed Attorney Musick that he and Coletti were the original inventors. In response, SYWULA challenged DaCosta and Attorney Musick and insisted all such inventions were his. SYWULA demanded that Attorney Musick list him as the sole inventor on all pending applications for the patents and refused t0 accept an accommodation that would name SYWULA, DaCosta, and Coletti as joint inventors. 32. SYWULA’S relationship With TELEPORT MOBILITY and DaCosta quickly deteriorated. DaCosta met with SYWULA on December 9, in an unsuccessful effort to ease tensions. Days later, after DaCosta requested SYWULA take time away from work, SYWULA apparently removed his personal belongings and company computer hardware from the Sunnyvale offices sometime prior to December 14, without contacting anyone at TELEPORT MOBILITY. Subsequent discussions throughout December between SYWULA, Attorney Musick, and DaCosta, wherein DaCosta and Musick offered to list SYWULA as a joint inventor 0n at least one of the pending applications, failed t0 appease him. 33. On December 13, SYWULA sent an email to Attorney Musick claiming that he had invented the name “TELEPORT” and requested that she change the name 0n the trademark applications from DaCosta’s name to his name. 34. On December 23, DaCosta was scheduled to present TELEPORT MOBILITY, its 8 COMPLAINT Case No. 2 1 -cv-00874 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1%. ludwigm nu luriLLsnuAL rnounn nkn Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 1 Filed 02/03/21 Page 9 of 24 business model, and the software to a prospective investor, who had already contributed $100,000 to the company. This event was well known t0 the TELEPORT MOBILITY board, including SYWULA. Although DaCosta confirmed he still had access to the software and that the software was properly functioning in the days and weeks leading up to the event, such was not the case when it came time for the presentation. The software, in fact, was disabled, Which DaCosta discovered the morning of the investor pitch. He immediately contacted SYWULA about the issue, but SYWULA casually dismissed the malfunction as insignificant and beyond his or DaCosta’s control. Unable t0 reschedule and understandably embarrassed, DaCosta went ahead With the meeting, even though he could not demonstrate the software. The presentation bombed.2 35. The investor pitch debacle made clear SYWULA’s intent to hijack and destroy TELEPORT MOBILITY. On December 30, SYWULA informed DaCosta of his decision to no longer work with TELEPORT MOBILITY. Nevertheless, SYWULA emailed DaCosta an ultimatum to resume work, the very next day. Throughout January 2021, SYWULA became increasingly hostile and belligerent t0 DaCosta and Attorney Musick, wrongfully claiming SYWULA not only invented all the technology described in the patents, but that SYWULA “invented” company trademarks, too. SYWULA’S interactions With them devolved further into threats; DaCosta would “go t0 jail” and SYWULA would report Attorney Musick to the California State Bar for ethics Violations for failing t0 comply with his demands. 36. In the early morning hours ofJanuary 12, 202 1 , DaCosta received multiple messages at his personal Gmail account from RamNode, LLC, who provides cloud-based computer services for TELEPORT MOBILITY.3 At 3: 1 8am, RamNode informed DaCosta as follows: Dear Alexis DaCosta (Teleport), This email is to confirm that we have received your cancellation request for the service listed below. 2 TELEPORT MOBILITY believes the fact the software coincidentally and mysteriously malfunctioned the morning of December 23, prior to an important investor pitch, is SYWULA’S doing. Throughout the five-year developmental history of the software, it has been consistently reliable and relatively error-free. SYWULA’S access to and control over the software on December 23, coupled with the growing animosity he exhibited toward DaCosta and TELEPORT MOBILITY, leads them to suspect SYWULA purposefully disabled the software in an act of retribution against TELEPORT MOBILITY. 3 DaCosta previously subscribed to the cloud services for TELEPORT MOBILITY years earlier, using his personal Gmail in the process, since the company did yet have email accounts or an Internet domain name of its own. 9 COMPLAINT Case No. 2 1 -cv-00874 nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 1 Filed 02/03/21 Page 10 of 24 Product/Service: 256MB SVZ Domain: tulip. The service Will be terminated within the next 24 hours. Regards, RamNode 37. When DaCosta attempted to log in to the RamNode server, he could not. When he tried t0 reset his RamNode password using both his TELEPORT MOBILITY and personal, Gmail addresses, he could not. 38. On information and belief, SYWULA clandestinely accessed and/or hacked DaCosta’s personal email account without DaCosta’s knowledge or consent, and used the account to surreptitiously terminate the RamNode services, thereby deleting and destroying all data and files contained therein. DaCosta had never given SYWULA permission or authorization t0 use 0r access his Gmail account, nor did SYWULA have authorization to access, use, alter, or terminate the RamNode cloud services. 39. RamNode was just the beginning. Two days after terminating that cloud server account, S Y W l JLA sent DaCosta an email 0n January 14, 2021 stating: I’m stepping down, I’m quitting Teleport. I’m taking with me all of my inventions, intellectual property, diagrams, trade secrets, internet domains, software, and everything that I conceived before Teleport incorporated. Effective immediately. I will be in touch With investors. 40. SYWULA then disabled DaCosta’s company email account, but eventually restored access to it on January 20, only after DaCosta’s father personally requested SYWULA d0 so. Such access was short-lived; SYWULA deleted the email account altogether 0n January 29. 41. SYWULA also accessed and made himself the sole administrator for TELEPORT MOBILITY’s internal network, switch, access point, on-site servers, and multiple cloud-based server accounts. SYWULA took similar actions to grant himself exclusive access t0 and control of, without limitation, TELEPORT MOBILITY’s DocuSign, Salesforce, Dropbox, Lucidchart, Wrike, Linode, Vultr (2), AWS, and “G Suite/Google Workspace” productivity software, Which 10 COMPLAINT Case No. 2 1 -cv-00874 nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 1 Filed 02/03/21 Page 11 of 24 host the entirety of TELEPORT MOBILITY’S software, intellectual property materials, business documents, financial data, personnel files, books, records, and other confidential, proprietary information, including the trade secrets. SYWULA even went s0 far as to take down and block access t0 company domain names and websites teleportnow.io and xelerate.io. 42. TELEPORT MOBILITY cannot maintain operations Without these data, systems, and services, but SYWULA refused multiple demands by DaCosta t0 relinquish control. As recently as January 27, 2021, SYWULA scoffed at DaCosta’s latest plea t0 hand over control 0f the business, saying “You have a very poor understanding ofwhat ‘belongs to’ means.” On January 28, SYWULA threatened to file a crime report with the police, against DaCosta. 43. On January 30, 2021 and February 1, 2021, DaCosta filed crime reports With the Santa Clara Police Department and the Sunnyvale Office 0f Public Safety, including Incident No. T2 1 003 19. A Sunnyvale Public Safety Officer interviewed DaCosta regarding SYWULA’s actions on February 1, 2021. 44. On January 3 1, 2021, Plaintiffs sent a written demand to SYWULA that he immediately cease and desist from the illegal conduct described herein. In this letter, Plaintiffs gave SYWULA until February 1, 2021 to acknowledge receipt of the correspondence and no later than the close of business on February 3, 2021 t0 provide a substantive response, indicating his willingness to comply with Plaintiffs’ demands. SYWULA did not respond on February 1 and did not indicate a Willingness to cooperate or otherwise refrain from further unlawful conduct by February 3. Attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs’ January 3 1, 2021 demand letter, which includes all documents and correspondence referenced herein. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT I Violation 0f the Defend Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 1832-1836(b)). 45. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 43 above as though fully set forth herein. 1 1 COMPLAINT Case No. 2 1 -cv-00874 nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 1 Filed 02/03/21 Page 12 of 24 46. Plaintiffs own numerous, valuable trade secrets as alleged herein, directed to products and services for use or intended for use in interstate commerce. 47. Plaintiffs use, 0r intend t0 use, their trade secrets in connection with their real-time intelligent matching & dispatching technology mobility service platforms, which operate in interstate commerce Via mobile networks across the country. 48. SYWULA knowingly misappropriated, stole, took, carried away, and/or concealed Plaintiffs’ trade secrets by theft and breach of his duty to maintain secrecy and without Plaintiffs’ consent. Indeed, SYWULA admitted in this January 14, 2021 email to DaCosta that he was taking Plaintiffs’ trade secrets. 49. SYWULA knowingly Without authorization copied, duplicated, sketched, drew, photographed, downloaded, uploaded, altered, destroyed, replicated, transmitted, delivered, sent, mailed, communicated, or conveyed such trade secret information. 50. SYWULA’S misappropriation and use of Plaintiffs’ trade secrets, as described herein, was undertaken for SYWULA’S own economic benefit and/or intending 0r knowingly injuring Plaintiffs, including TELEPORT MOBILITY. 51. SYWULA has been unjustly enriched by his use and/or disclosure of Plaintiffs’ trade secrets. 52. SYWULA’s use and/or disclosure of Plaintiffs trade secrets was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ losses and/or SYWULA’s unjust enrichment. 53. On January 3 1, 2021, Plaintiffs sent SYWULA a letter demanding that he cease and desist from continuing to misappropriate Plaintiffs’ trade secrets and demanding their return. See Exhibit A. 54. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 1836(b)(3), Plaintiffs seek an injunction against SYWULA to prevent SYWULA’s continued misappropriation of Plaintiffs’ trade secrets and t0 force SYWULA to protect Plaintiffs’ trade secrets in his possession. Plaintiffs also seek damages for actual losses resulting from SYWULA’S misappropriation, as well as unjust enrichment caused by the misappropriation 0f their trade secrets in an amount to be proven at trial. Plaintiffs further request an award of exemplary damages pursuant t0 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(C) for SYWULA’s 12 COMPLAINT Case No. 2 1 -cv-00874 nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 1 Filed 02/03/21 Page 13 of 24 willful and malicious misappropriation 0f their trade secrets, as well as attorneys’ fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(D). COUNT II Violations 0f the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Cal. CiV. Code § 3246 et seq.) 55. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 54 above as though fully set forth herein. 56. Plaintiffs, including TELEPORT MOBILITY, own numerous trade secrets within the meaning of Cal. CiV. Code § 3426.1(d). 57. Plaintiffs use, or intend to use, their trade secrets in connection with their real-time intelligent matching & dispatching technology mobility service platform in interstate commerce Via mobile networks across the country. 58. SYWULA misappropriated Plaintiffs’ trade secrets by theft and breach of his duty to maintain secrecy and without Plaintiffs’ consent. Indeed, SYWULA admitted in this January 14, 2021 email to DaCosta that he was taking Plaintiffs’ trade secrets. 59. SYWULA has used and/or disclosed Plaintiffs’ trade secrets. 60. SYWULA has been unjustly enriched by his use and/or disclosure of Plaintiffs’ trade secrets. 61. SYWULA’s use and/or disclosure of Plaintiffs trade secrets was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ losses and/or SYWULA’S unjust enrichment. 62. Plaintiffs seek all available remedies available pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.3, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Cal CiV. Code § 3426.4. COUNT III (Breach of Contract) 63. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 62 above as though fully set forth herein. 64. SYWULA and TELEPORT MOBILITY, including its assignors and predecessors in interest, entered into express written contracts, including the Consulting Agreement, Xelerate 13 COMPLAINT Case No. 2 1 -cv-00874 nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 1 Filed 02/03/21 Page 14 of 24 Partnership Agreement, and Employee Agreement. 65. A11 three agreements impose strict confidentiality, non-disclosure, and invention and copyright assignment obligations upon SYWULA. 66. By disclosing Plaintiffs’ trade secrets, and laying claim to copyrights, software, patents, inventions, and trade secrets belonging to Plaintiffs, SYWULA has breached all three written contracts he has with TELEPORT MOBILITY, NORTHERN LIGHTS, and/or their assignors and predecessors in interest, as alleged herein. 67. TELEPORT MOBILITY, NORTHERN LIGHTS, and/or their assignors and predecessors in interest, have suffered damages as a direct and proximate result 0f SYWULA’s multiple breaches 0f the Consulting Agreement, Xelerate Partnership Agreement, and Employee Agreement he has With Plaintiffs in an amount t0 be proven at trial. 68. Plaintiffs seek reimbursement of litigation expenses and attorneys’ fees as provided for in the Consulting Agreement, Xelerate Partnership Agreement, and/or Employee Agreement. COUNT IV Violation of the Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (Cal. Penal Code § 502 et seq.) 69. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 68 above as though fully set forth herein. 70. TELEPORT MOBILITY is the owner of the internal and external computer systems, computer networks, internal networks, switches, access points, on-site servers, and multiple cloud-based server accounts, including TELEPORT MOBILITY’s DocuSign, Salesforce, Dropbox, RamNode, and “G Suite/Google Workspace” productivity software, Which hosts the entirety 0f TELEPORT MOBILITY’S software, intellectual property materials, business documents, financial data, personnel files, books, records, and other confidential, proprietary information, including the trade secrets. 71. SYWULA knowingly accessed and made himself the sole administrator for TELEPORT MOBILITY’s internal network, switch, access point, on-site servers, and multiple cloud-based server accounts. S Y W l JLA knowingly took similar actions to grant himself exclusive 1 4 COMPLAINT Case No. 2 1 -cv-00874 nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 1 Filed 02/03/21 Page 15 of 24 access to and control of, Without limitation, TELEPORT MOBILITY’s DocuSign, Salesforce, Dropbox, RamNode, Lucidchart, Wrike, Linode, Vultr (2), AWS, and “G Suite/Google Workspace” productivity software, which host the entirety ofTELEPORT MOBILITY’s software, intellectual property materials, business documents, financial data, personnel files, books, records, and other confidential, proprietary information, including the trade secrets. SYWULA even went so far as t0 knowingly take down and block access to company domain names and websites: teleportnow.i0 and xelerate.io. 72. SYWULA knowingly accessed and without permission altered, damaged, deleted, destroyed, and otherwise used data, computer systems, computer networks and cloud-based accounts and took down and blocked access to TELEPORT MOBILITY domain names and websites teleportnow.io and xelerateio. 73. SYWULA accessed Plaintiffs’ computer, computer systems, computer networks, software, data and accounts Without Plaintiffs’ permission or authorization. 74. SYWULA knowingly and without permission used 0r caused t0 be used computer services. 75. SYWULA knowingly and Without permission disrupted or caused the disruption 0f computer services and/or denied computer services t0 an authorized user of a computer, computer system, or computer network, including the deletion 0f Plaintiffs’ email accounts. 76. Plaintiffs, including TELEPORT MOBILITY, have suffered damages as a direct and proximate result of SYWULA’S unlawful and unauthorized access t0 Plaintiffs’ computer, computer systems, computer networks, software, data and accounts. 77. Pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 502(e)(1), Plaintiffs seek to enjoin SYWULA’S access to their computers, computer networks, computer systems, software, data, and accounts, and seek damages in an amount t0 be proven at trial. 78. Plaintiffs also seek punitive and exemplary damages for SYWULA’S oppressive, fraudulent and malicious conduct. 79. Pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 502(c)(2), Plaintiffs seek an award of attorneys’ fees. 15 COMPLAINT Case No. 2 1 -cv-00874 nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 1 Filed 02/03/21 Page 16 of 24 COUNT V Violation 0f the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 80. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 79 above as though fully set forth herein. 8 1. TELEPORT MOBILITY owns the valid and legally protectable marks TELEPORT and TELEPORT MOBILITY. 82. Upon information and belief, without Plaintiffs’ consent, SYWULA has used and continues to use the marks, including TELEPORT and TELEPORT MOBILITY, in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution 0r advertising of sofiware and services directed to real- time intelligent dispatching technology in the mobility industry. 83. At all relevant times, SYWULA had actual and direct knowledge of Plaintiffs’ prior use and ownership of the TELEPORT and TELEPORT MOBILITY marks. 84. SYWULA’S use 0f TELEPORT MOBILITY’S marks is likely t0 cause confusion and mistake in the mind of the public, leading the public to believe that SYWULA has the approval or sponsorship of TELEPORT MOBILITY when he does not. SYWULA’S actions Will damage TELEPORT MOBILITY and the public, in as much as Plaintiff has n0 control over the quality 0f goods and services sold by SYWULA and because of the source confusion caused by SYWULA, TELEPORT MOBILITY has lost control over its valuable goodwill. 85. Upon information and belief, SYWULA is using the TELEPORT MOBILITY marks with the intention of misleading, deceiving, or confusing consumers as to the origin 0f SYWULA’s goods and services and of trading 0n TELEPORT MOBILITY’s reputation and goodwill. SYWUAL’s use 0f the marks constitutes willful, deliberate, and intentional trademark infringement. 86. TELEPORT MOBILTY has requested in writing that SYWULA cease and desist from his infringing actions but SYWUAL has failed t0 comply with Plaintiff s demands. 87. SYWULA’S unauthorized use of the TELEPORT MOBILITY marks in interstate commerce as described above constitutes trademark infringement and unfair competition under 15 1 6 COMPLAINT Case No. 2 1 -cv-00874 nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 1 Filed 02/03/21 Page 17 of 24 U.S.C. § 1125(a) and is likely to cause consumer confusion, mistake, or deception. 88. SYWULA’S unauthorized marketing and sale of his products and services in interstate commerce, using the TELEPORT MOBILTIY marks, constitutes a false designation 0f origin or false representation that wrongfully and falsely designates SYWULA’s products and services as originating from or connected With TELEPORT MOBILITY, and constitutes the use of false descriptions or representations in interstate commerce in Violation 0f 15 U.S.C. § 1125(3). The actions ofSYWULA as alleged herein constitute intentional, willful, knowing, and deliberate unfair competition. 89. As a direct and proximate result 0f SYWULA’S trademark infringement and acts of unfair competition, TELEPORT MOBILITY has suffered and Will continue t0 suffer loss of income, profits, and goodwill and SYWULA has and will continue t0 unfairly acquire income, profits, and goodwill. 90. SYWULA’s trademark infringement and acts of unfair competition Will cause further irreparable injury t0 TELEPORT MOBILITY if he is not restrained by this Court from further Violation of Plaintiff’s rights. TELEPORT MOBILITY has no adequate remedy at law. 91. Thus, Plaintiffs seek to enjoin SYWULA’S unauthorized use of their marks, plus damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C § 1117. COUNT VI Conversion 92. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 91 above as though fully set forth herein. 93. Plaintiffs, including TELEPORT MOBILITY, own and/or have the right to possess the computer hardware, computer systems, and computer networks related t0 their business operations, as alleged herein. 94. SYWULA intentionally interfered With Plaintiffs ’ property rights, title, and interests by exercising dominion and control 0f computer hardware, computer systems and computer networks belonging to Plaintiffs. 95. SYWULA’S interference deprived Plaintiffs of the possession or use of the 17 COMPLAINT Case No. 2 1 -cv-00874 nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 1 Filed 02/03/21 Page 18 of 24 computer systems and computer networks as alleged herein. 96. As a direct and proximate result 0f SYWULA’S dominion and control of Plaintiffs’ computer systems and computer networks, Plaintiffs have suffered damages in an amount t0 be proven at trial. 97. The aforementioned conduct 0f SYWULA was oppressive, malicious and despicable in that it was intentional and done in conscious disregard for the rights and safety of others, and was carried out With a conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ right to be free from such tortious behavior, such as to constitute oppression, fraud or malice under California Civil Code §3294 and any other applicable laws entitling Plaintiffs to punitive damages against SYWULA. 98. In subj ecting Plaintiffs to the wrongful treatment herein described, SYWULA acted with oppression, fraud or malice under California Civil Code §3294 and is therefore liable t0 Plaintiffs for punitive damages. 99. In subj ecting Plaintiffs to the wrongful treatment herein described, SYWULA acted with a conscious disregard of the rights 0r safety of others, or was otherwise guilty 0f oppression, fraud 0r malice under California Civil Code §3294 and is therefore liable to Plaintiffs for punitive damages. COUNT VII Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations 100. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 99 above as though fully set forth herein. 101. Plaintiffs, including TELEPORT MOBILITY, were and/or still are parties t0 valid contracts With the entities and organizations providing the following goods and services for TELEPORT MOBILITY: DocuSign, Salesforce, Dropbox, RamNode, Lucidchart, Wrike, Linode, Vultr (2), AWS, and “G Suite/Google Workspace.” TELEPORT MOBILITY is also a party to one or more contracts with certain investors in the business. 102. SYWULA knows, and at all relevant times herein knew, of these aforementioned contracts. 103. SYWULA’S conduct prevented performance and/or made performance more 18 COMPLAINT Case No. 2 1 -cv-00874 nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 1 Filed 02/03/21 Page 19 of 24 expensive or difficult, with regard to such contracts. 104. SYWULA intended t0 disrupt the performance of such contract and/or SYWULA knew that disruption 0f performance was certain or substantially certain to occur. 105. Plaintiffs, including TELEPORT MOBILITY, were harmed as a result and SYWULA’S conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ harm. 106. As a direct and proximate result of SYWULA’S conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 107. The aforementioned conduct 0f SYWULA was oppressive, malicious and despicable in that it was intentional and done in conscious disregard for the rights and safety of others, and was carried out With a conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ right to be free from such tortious behavior, such as to constitute oppression, fraud or malice under California Civil Code §3294 and any other applicable laws entitling Plaintiffs to punitive damages against SYWULA. 108. In subj ecting Plaintiffs to the wrongful treatment herein described, SYWULA acted with oppression, fraud or malice under California Civil Code §3294 and are therefore liable to Plaintiffs for punitive damages. 109. In subj ecting Plaintiffs to the wrongful treatment herein described, SYWULA acted with a conscious disregard of the rights 0r safety of others, or was otherwise guilty 0f oppression, fraud or malice under California Civil Code §3294 and are therefore liable to Plaintiffs for punitive damages. COUNT VII Breach 0f Fiduciary Duty 110. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 109 above as though fully set forth herein. 111. SYWULA was at all relevant times alleged herein an owner, officer, and employee ofTELEPORT MOBILITY and/or NORTHERN LIGHTS. 112. As an owner, officer, and employee member-manager of TELEPORT MOBILITY and/orNORTHERN LIGHTS, SYWULA owed a fiduciary duty t0 Plaintiffs t0 act at all times with the utmost care, honesty, undivided loyalty and fidelity in all SYWULA’s business dealings With 19 COMPLAINT Case No. 2 1 -cv-00874 nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 1 Filed 02/03/21 Page 20 of 24 Plaintiffs. 113. SYWULA breached his fiduciary duty to Plaintiffs by the acts 0f malfeasance described herein, including but not limited t0 those acts 0f self-dealing that were designed to deprive Plaintiffs 0f their interest in their business and tangible and intangible property. 1 14. As a proximate result 0fSYWULA’S breach offiduciary duties, Plaintiffs have been harmed as alleged herein in an amount in an amount to be proved at trial. 115. The aforementioned conduct 0f SYWULA was oppressive, malicious and despicable in that it was intentional and done in conscious disregard for the rights and safety of others, and was carried out with a conscious disregard 0f Plaintiffs’ right to be free from such tortious behavior, such as to constitute oppression, fraud or malice under California Civil Code §3294 and any other applicable laws entitling Plaintiffs to punitive damages against SYWULA. 116. In subj ecting Plaintiffs to the wrongful treatment herein described, SYWULA acted With oppression, fraud or malice under California Civil Code §3294 and is therefore liable to Plaintiffs for punitive damages. 117. In subj ecting Plaintiffs to the wrongful treatment herein described, SYWULA acted With a conscious disregard of the rights 0r safety of others, or was otherwise guilty 0f oppression, fraud 0r malice under California Civil Code §3294 and is therefore liable to Plaintiffs for punitive damages. COUNT VIII Unfair Business Practices (Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.) 118. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 117 above as though fully set forth herein. 119. SYWULA has engage in unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business acts or practices as set forth herein. 120. SYWULA’S acts constitute m business acts and/or practices because Defendant’s practices have caused and are likely to cause substantial injury to Plaintiffs, which injury is not and was not reasonably avoidable by Plaintiffs, by surreptitiously accessing Plaintiffs’ 20 COMPLAINT Case No. 2 1 -cv-00874 nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 1 Filed 02/03/21 Page 21 of 24 data and trade secrets and interfering with Plaintiffs’ business. 121. SYWULA’S acts and practices offend established public policies favoring the protection of intellectual property. SYWULA’S acts threaten an incipient Violation 0f intellectual property laws or Violate the policy and spirit of one 0f those laws because the effect of the acts and practices is comparable 0r the same as a Violation 0f the law or otherwise significantly threatens or harms competition. 122. SYWULA’s acts and practices cause significant harm to Plaintiffs. SYWULA’S reasons, justifications, and motives, if any, d0 not outweigh the gravity of the harms t0 his Victims. 123. Defendants’ acts and practices are unlawful because they violate 18 U.S.C. §§ 1832 et seq., Cal. Civ. Code § 3246 et seq., Cal. Penal Code § 502 et seq., and 15 U.S.C. § 1125 et seq. as alleged throughout this complaint and in the Counts I, II, IV and V, incorporated by reference hereto. 124. SYWULA’s acts and practice are fraudulent in that they have deceived or are likely to deceive the public as alleged herein. 125. Plaintiffs have been harm by SYWULA’s acts and practices to their detriment. 126. Plaintiffs seek an order of the Court awarding restitution, injunctive relief, and all other relief allowed under California Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. COUNT IX Declaratory Judgment 127. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 126 above as though fully set forth herein. 128. An actual, present and justiciable controversy has arisen between Plaintiffs and SYWULA concerning Plaintiffs’ trade secrets, patents, trademarks, and copyrights, as described herein. Specific controversies include: a. Whether DaCosta and Coletti, and not SYWULA, are the joint inventors 0f the inventions claimed in United States Application Nos; 16/222,817; 15/680,439; 16/038,487; 15/675,757; 62/539,706; 62/482,306; 62/426,549; 62/375,491; and/or 17/124,833; and PCT Application Nos. PCT/US 1 8/043363 PCT/US 1 8/043359; and 21 COMPLAINT Case No. 2 1 -cv-00874 nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 1 Filed 02/03/21 Page 22 of 24 b. Whether TELEPORT MOBILITY and/or NORTHERN LIGHTS, and not SYWULA, own all right, title, and interest in and to the patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets contained, embodied, expressed, and/or complied in the patents, software, marks, and trade secrets; 129. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time under the circumstances in order that Plaintiffs may ascertain their rights. 130. Plaintiffs desire a judicial determination of their rights as owners and inventors 0f the intellectual property, including trade secrets, patents, copyrights, and trademarks appropriated by SYWULA as alleged herein. 13 1. Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer irreparable harm as a result of SYWULA’S misappropriation of their trade secrets, data, software, patents, and copyrights. 132. SYWULA’S conduct will continue t0 Violate Plaintiffs’ legal rights, threatens their business, cause irreparably injury and affect Plaintiffs until relief is granted by this Court. 133. In order to resolve the legal and factual questions raised by Plaintiffs and t0 afford relief from the uncertainty and controversy which SYWULA’s actions have precipitated, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment 0f its rights under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02. Prayer for Relief WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs TELEPORT MOBILITY and NORTHERN LIGHTS pray for judgment against SYWULA, such that: 1. A declaration that DaCosta and Coletti, and not SYWULA, are the joint inventors of the inventions claimed in United States Application Nos. 16/222,817; 15/680,439; 16/038,487; 15/675,757; 62/539,706; 62/482,306; 62/426,549; 62/375,491; and/or 17/124,833; PCT Application Nos. PCT/USIS/043363 and PCT/US 1 8/043359, and all national and regional phase applications based thereon; 2. A declaration that Plaintiffs are the owners of the TELEPORT and TELEPORT MOBILITY trademarks as set forth in U.S. Trademark Application Nos. 88/261 ,127 and 88/261,15 1, and all rights and goodwill therein; 3. A declaration that TELEPORT MOBILITY and/or NORTHERN LIGHTS own all 22 COMPLAINT Case No. 2 1 -cv-00874 nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 1 Filed 02/03/21 Page 23 of 24 right, title, and interest in and to the patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets contained, embodied, expressed, and/or compiled in the patents, software, marks, and trade secrets; . Temporarily, preliminarily and permanently enjoining and restraining SYWULA and each of his agents, representatives, employees, officers, attorneys, successors, assigns, affiliates and any persons in privity or active concert or participation with any ofthem from further use, disclosure or dissemination of Plaintiffs’ trade secrets, data, software, and accounts; . Temporarily, preliminarily and permanently enjoining and restraining SYWULA and each of his agents, representatives, employees, officers, attorneys, successors, assigns, affiliates and any persons in privity or active concert or participation With any of them from using, reproducing, copying, distributing, publishing, publicly performing, publicly displaying, and/or creating derivative works of the TELEPORT MOBILITY software or works; . Temporarily, preliminarily and permanently enjoining and restraining SYWULA and each of his agents, representatives, employees, officers, attorneys, successors, assigns, affiliates and any persons in privity or active concert or participation With any of them from using the marks TELEPORT 0r TELEPORT MOBILITY or any other designation alone or in combination With other words 0r symbols, as a trademark, service mark, trade name component or otherwise, t0 market, advertise, distribute or identify SYWULA’S products or services, where that designation would create a likelihood of confusion, mistake or deception with TELEPORT MOBILITY’s marks; . For all other general, special, compensatory, and consequential damages caused by SY WULA’s statutory Violations, breach 0f contract, and intentional and negligent torts; . For additional default interest as it accrues before judgment; . For pre- and post-judgement interest; 23 COMPLAINT Case No. 2 1 -cv-00874 nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 1 Filed 02/03/21 Page 24 of 24 10. For attorneys’ fees t0 the extent awardable by contract or pursuant to applicable law; 11. For costs of suit incurred; and 12. Such other and further relief as the Court considers proper. Dated: February 3, 2021 Respectfully Submitted By: /S/Frederic G. Ludwig, III Frederic G. Ludwig, III Andrew J. Kubik LUDWIG, APC Attorneys for Plaintiffs TELEPORT MOBILITY, INC. and NORTHERN LIGHTS, LLC Jury Trial Demanded Plaintiffs TELEPORT MOBILITY and NORTHERN LIGHTS demand a jury trial on all such triable issues 0f fact. Dated: February 3, 2021 Respectfully Submitted By: /S/Frederic G. Ludwig, III Frederic G. Ludwig, III Andrew J. Kubik LUDWIG, APC Attorneys for Plaintiffs TELEPORT MOBILITY, INC. and NORTHERN LIGHTS, LLC COMPLAINT Case No. 2 1 -cv-00874 Exhibit B nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 13 Filed 02/10/21 Page 1 of 6 Frederic G. Ludwig, III (CA Bar No. 205332) eric.ludwig@ludwigiplaw.com Andrew J. Kubik (CA Bar N0. 246902) andrew.kubik@ludwigiplaw.com LUDWIG, APC 12463 Rancho Bernardo Road, No. 532 San Diego, California 92128 Telephone: 858-945-43 14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs TELEPORT MOBILITY, INC. and NORTHERN LIGHTS, LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION TELEPORT MOBILITY, INC., a Nevada Case NO- 5121-CV-00874-SI corporation; and NORTHERN LIGHTS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, PLAINTIFFS, NOTICE OF EXPARTE MOTION AND EXPARTE MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND EVIDENCE PRESERVATION ORDER Plaintiffs, V. KRZYSZTOF SYWULA, an 1nd1v1dua1, Date: February 1 0, 2021 Defendant. . ,Tlme. Courtroom: 1 Judge: Hon. Susan Illston Pursuant to Federal Rule 0f Civil Procedure 65 and Civil Local Rule 65-1, Plaintiff TELEPORT MOBILITY, INC. (“Teleport Mobility”) hereby gives notice that on February 11, 2021, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, Teleport Mobility will, and hereby does, move the United States District Court, Northern District 0f California, San Francisco Division, at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Courtroom 1 - 17th Floor, San Francisco, California 94102, the Hon. Senior District Judge Susan Illston presiding, for an ex-parte temporary Restraining Order, Order to Show Cause, and Evidence Preservation Order against Defendant KRZYSZTOF SYWULA (“Sywula”). 1 NOTICE OF EXPARTE MOTION AND EXPARTE MOTION FOR TRO Case No. 5:21-cv-000874-SI an anchvuA iiiiiiiiiiiii Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 13 Filed 02/10/21 Page 2 of 6 This is a case of a disgruntled former employee hijacking Teleport Mobility, laying claim to company intellectual property, and surreptitiously accessing, downloading, destroying, and/or blocking access to Plaintiffs’ confidential, proprietary information. Plaintiffs seek damages and protection from Sywula, who is actively engaged in a persistent, ongoing, intentional campaign to take exclusive control of Plaintiffs’ business, computer networks, and intellectual property. Through such acts, as further detailed herein and in Plaintiffs’ moving papers, Sywula is preventing Plaintiffs from continuing t0 operate their business or access, use, and enjoy their own property. Plaintiffs have warned Sywula in writing that he is in Violation 0f the law, but Sywula has not abated his conduct or relinquished control of Plaintiffs’ business, computer networks, software, files, and intellectual property. The Court should grant temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief, such that Sywula does not further Violate Plaintiffs’ rights. The speed and scale 0f Sywula’s theft and destruction - restricting/blocking access to thousands of highly confidential files, deleting Teleport accounts/services and account history within weeks of complaining about inventorship - and cavalier admission 0f guilt when confronted by Teleport Mobility, raises grave concerns that Teleport Mobility has yet to uncover all of Defendant’s misconduct. Teleport Mobility therefore respectfully requests urgent, tailored relief from this Court enjoining Defendant from using or disclosing any Teleport Mobility trade secrets that remain in his possession, enjoining him from further destroying evidence, and ordering expedited discovery t0 determine whether he stole 0r deleted any other information, kept copies Teleport Mobility has not recovered, and/or disclosed Teleport Mobility trade secrets to others. Accordingly: (1) there is a substantial likelihood that Teleport Mobility will succeed on the merits of its claims against Defendant for misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of contract Via unauthorized access to, downloading, destroying, and/or blocking access to Teleport Mobility trade secrets, either during or after his employment by Teleport Mobility; (2) absent the issuance 0fpreliminary injunctive relief Teleport Mobility will suffer immediate and irreparable injury due to Defendant’s use or disclosure ofTeleport Mobility’s trade secrets; (3) such injuries substantially outweigh any costs to Defendant that may result from granting this motion, which is intended to preserve the status quo; and (4) the requested relief supports the strong public interest in favor 0f 2 NOTICE OF EXPARTE MOTION AND EXPARTE MOTION FOR TRO Case No. 5 :2 1 -cv-0008 74-SI an anchvuA iiiiiiiiiiiii Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 13 Filed 02/10/21 Page 3 of 6 protecting trade secrets. For these reasons, Teleport Mobility respectfully requests that the Court grant the following relief as set forth in the accompanying Proposed Order: I. Temporary Restraining Order Teleport Mobility requests that the Court issue an Order, pending a hearing 0n the requested Order to Show Cause, that Defendant and any persons in active concert or participation with him, be: 1. ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from obtaining, retaining, using, transmitting, disseminating, or disclosing any of Teleport Mobility’s: a. confidential programs, code, source code, methods, techniques, processes, UMLs, diagrams, and data, as well as the scientific, technical, and engineering information related to the patentsl and the software} including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, UMLs, diagrams, and procedures (collectively, “Technical Information and Know- How”); and b. scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including business and marketing plans, sales and customer data and lists, vendor and supply information, sales forecasts, market forecasts, current investor information, prospective investor information, patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, and codes (collectively, “Business Information”), as well as business and financial information not otherwise accessible to an outside shareholder 1 United States Application Nos. 16/222,817; 15/680,439; 16/038,487; 15/675,757; 62/539,706; 62/482,306; 62/426,549; 62/375,491; and 17/124,833, in addition t0 related international patent applications filed in the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) in accordance With the Patent Cooperation Treaty (“PCT”), Application Nos. PCT/USlS/O43363 and PCT/US 1 8/043359, which have entered into national and regional phases in Australia, Canada, China, Japan, Singapore, and the European Patent Office (“EPO”) (collectively, the “patents”). 2 Relevant software programs include, Without limitation, those entitled “BlueKiwi (Version A),” “BlueKiwi (Version B),” “Black Lotus,” “Xelerate,” and “Xelerate Demo” (collectively, the “software” or the “works”). 3 NOTICE 0F EXPARTE MOTION AND EXPARTE MOTION FOR TRO Case No. 5 :2 1 -cv-0008 74-SI an anchvuA iiiiiiiiiiiii Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 13 Filed 02/10/21 Page 4 of 6 that Defendant downloaded, transferred, 0r otherwise obtained from Teleport Mobility’s computers, networks, systems, and/or servers, including any information contained within or deriving from those files (together, the “Teleport Mobility Trade Secrets”); 2. ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from accessing, using, modifying, deleting, destroying, relocating, 0r blocking access to any of Teleport Mobility’s internal networks, switch, access points, on-site servers, cloud-based server accounts, or related services, including Without limitation, TELEPORT MOBILITY’S DocuSign, Salesforce, Dropbox, Lucidchart, Wrike, Linode, Vultr (2), Ramnode, AWS, domains, and “G Suite/Google Workspace” productivity software, including any information contained Within or deriving from those computers, networks, systems, and/or servers; 3. REQUIRED t0 return and restore to Teleport Mobility, within three (3) days of the Order, administrative and/or exclusive access t0 and control 0f Teleport Mobility’s internal networks, switch, access points, on-site servers, cloud-based server accounts, or related services, including without limitation, TELEPORT MOBILITY’s DocuSign, Salesforce, Dropbox, Lucidchart, Wrike, Linode, Vultr (2), Ramnode, AWS, domains, and “G Suite/Google Workspace” productivity software; 4. REQUIRED to return to Teleport Mobility, within three (3) days of the Order, all Teleport Mobility equipment, tangible materials, and information that remain in Defendant’s possession, custody, or control, including but not limited to any emails, files, records, or other documents that Defendant downloaded, removed, 0r otherwise obtained from Teleport Mobility, whether original or duplicate; 5. REQUIRED to identify for Teleport Mobility, by hand delivery or electronically within three (3) days of the Order, all other desktop and laptop computers, internal and external hard drives, USB storage devices, flash drives, thumb drives, memory cards, read/writable optical media (including CD-ROMs and DVD-ROMS), cloud storage accounts (including Dropbox), email accounts, tablet devices (including iPads), smartphones, other storage devices or accounts, 0r hard copy documents (collectively “Media”), belonging to or in Defendant’s possession, custody, or control, that contain any Teleport Mobility Trade Secrets (together, the “Identified Media”); 4 NOTICE OF EXPARTE MOTION AND EXPARTE MOTION FOR TRO Case No. 5 :2 1 -cv-0008 74-SI an anchvuA ttttttttttttt Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 13 Filed 02/10/21 Page 5 of 6 6. REQUIRED t0 produce t0 Teleport Mobility, by hand delivery or electronically within three (3) days of the Order, the Identified Media, 0r allow Teleport Mobility’s agents, including any computer forensic experts, to forensically preserve and mirror/image said Identified Media (Which mirrored data shall be kept confidential by Teleport Mobility until such time as the Court re-designates any portion thereof under a protective order); 7. REQUIRED to provide to Teleport Mobility, by hand delivery or electronically within three (3) days 0f the Order, all logins, user IDs, passwords, and any other processes necessary to obtain access t0 any operating system, database, server, software, file, 0r other storage location for the Identified Media within Defendant’s possession, custody, or control; and 8. REQUIRED to identify for Teleport Mobility, by hand delivery or electronically within three (3) days of the Order, any other persons, entities, 0r locations (including any Media) not Within Defendant’s possession, custody, or control, to Which Defendant has transmitted, disseminated, disclosed, or stored any Teleport Mobility Trade Secrets. II. Order t0 Show Cause re: Preliminary Injunction Teleport Mobility further requests that Defendant be ordered to appear before this Court, at a date, time, and place to be set, to show cause Why the Court should not issue a Preliminary Injunction ordering the same reliefrequested above in the TRO, to the extent not already completed prior to issuance of the Preliminary Injunction. III. Evidence Preservation Order Finally, t0 ensure that key evidence is not destroyed prior to an adjudication or other resolution of this action, Teleport Mobility requests that the Court issue an Order that Defendant shall retain and preserve all documents relating to this action (including, but not limited t0, all electronic communications and all Teleport Mobility Trade Secrets) and shall be prohibited from destroying or modifying any such evidence. This Motion is made upon the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declarations of Alexis DaCosta and Frederic G. Ludwig, III, and the Complaint filed on this day, and such further papers, evidence, and arguments as may be submitted to the Court. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 65-1 (b), the undersigned counsel for Teleport Mobility and 5 NOTICE OF EXPARTE MOTION AND EXPARTE MOTION FOR TRO Case No. 5 :2 1 -cv-0008 74-SI KOOONQ an anchvuA iiiiiiiiiiiii Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 13 Filed 02/10/21 Page 6 0f 6 Northern Lights certifies that 0n February 10, 2021 at approximately 10:00 p.m., his law firm notified Defendant Sywula and his settlement counsel Via all know Sywula email addresses 0f Teleport Mobility’s intent to file this ex parte motion at this place and time, and provided courtesy copies 0f the motion together with all supporting papers. Dated: February 10, 2021 Respectfully Submitted By: /S/ Frederic G. Ludwig, III Frederic G. Ludwig, III Andrew J. Kubik LUDWIG, APC Attorneys for Plaintiffs TELEPORT MOBILITY, INC. and NORTHERN LIGHTS, LLC 6 NOTICE OF EXPARTE MOTION AND EXPARTE MOTION FOR TRO Case No. 5 :2 1 -cv-0008 74-SI “I Case 3:21-cv-OO874-SI Document 14 Filed 02/10/21 Page 1 of 18 1 Frederic G. Ludwig, III (CA Bar No. 205332) eric.ludwig@1udwigiplaw.com 2 Andrew J. Kubik (CA Bar N0. 246902) andrew.kubik@1udwigip1aw.com 3 LUDWIG, APC 12463 Rancho Bernardo Road, No. 532 San Diego, California 92128 5 Telephone: 858-945-43 1 4 6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs TELEPORT MOBILITY, INC. and NORTHERN LIGHTS, LLC 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN JOSE DIVISION 1 1 TELEPORT MOBILITY, INC., a Nevada Case N0. 21-CV-00874-SI 12 corporation; and NORTHERN LIGHTS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, 13 MEMORANDUM OF POINTES AND Plaintiffs AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 0F 14 9 PLAINTIFFS’ EXPARTE MOTION FOR V. TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, 15 ORDER T0 SHOW CAUSE RE: KRZYSZTOF SYWULA, an individual, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONa AND 16 EVIDENCE PRESERVATION ORDER Defendant. 17 Date: February 11, 2021 Time: 18 Courtroom: 1 Judge: Hon. Susan Illston 1 9 Complaint Filed: February 3, 2021 20 2 1 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _. ludwig 1 APC MEMO OF LAW ISO PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE MOTION [E- Case No. 2 1 -cv-00874-SI Case 3:21-cv-OO874-SI Document 14 Filed 02/10/21 Page 2 of 18 1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 Plaintiffs TELEPORT MOBILITY, INC. (“TELEPORT MOBILITY”) and NORTHERN 3 LIGHTS, LLC, (“NORTHERN LIGHTS”), collectively (“Plaintiffs”) need urgent relief from this 4 Court to (1) prevent a former employee, Defendant KRZYSZTOF SYWULA (“SYWULA or 5 Defendant”), from disseminating trade secrets he stole from Plaintiffs prior to and upon his 6 resignation from TELEPORT MOBILITY; (2) uncover the full scope 0f his theft; and (3) stop him 7 from destroying the evidence of his theft. Plaintiffs seek this relief because they have n0 choice: 8 Plaintiffs’ cease-and-desist demands have not been met, and Plaintiffs must take all steps necessary 9 to protect their trade secrets from theft. The trade secrets at issue took years to develop, and 10 Defendant’s dissemination 0fthem would cause Plaintiffs irreparable harm. 11 SYWULA, as the person in charge of maintaining the security of plaintiffs’ trade secrets, is in 12 a unique position to gain access to all ofPlaintiffs’ proprietary and confidential information. Indeed, 13 SYWULA has used his position to block access to critical accounts, services, and files that 14 Plaintiffs rely 0n t0 run their operations, including deleting his partner’s email account. SYWULA 15 has also attempted t0 cover his tracks by deleting the log history ofhis account access and activities. 16 Despite Plaintiffs efforts t0 resolve this dispute out of court, SYWULA continues to obfuscate, and 17 interfere With Plaintiffs’ trade secrets, accounts, and services. 18 In light of Defendant’s premeditated trade secret theft, lying, and obstruction, Plaintiffs request 19 urgent, tailored relief from the Court (1) enjoining Defendant from using or disclosing any of 20 Plaintiffs’ trade secrets that remain in his possession; (2) enjoining him from further destroying 21 evidence, and (3) ordering expedited discovery to quickly determine the filll extent of his 22 misconduct. 23 II. STATEMENT 0F ISSUES 24 1) Whether the Court should issue a temporary restraining order, followed by a 25 preliminary injunction, enjoining defendant from using or disclosing Plaintiffs’ 26 trade secrets; 27 2) Whether the Court should require a bond for issuance 0f the requested injunction; 28 Id] 2 _l IUdWIgAPC MEMO OF LAW ISO PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE MOTION vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv Case No. 2 1 -cv-00874-SI Case 3:21-cv-OO874-SI Document 14 Filed 02/10/21 Page 3 of 18 1 3) Whether there is good cause for expedited discovery so that Plaintiffs can uncover 2 the full extent 0f Defendant’s theft and prevent further dissemination 0f their trade 3 secrets; and 4 4) Whether an evidence preservation order is needed to prevent Defendant from further 5 destroying relevant evidence. 6 III. BACKGROUND 7 A. TELEPORT MOBILITY’s Business and Technology 8 Based in California, and founded by DaCosta and third-party Vince Coletti in 2016, 9 TELEPORT MOBILITY is an industry-leading innovator in real-time intelligent dispatching 10 technology in the mobility industry. Declaration 0f Alexis DaCosta (“DaCost Decl.”) 11 4. The 11 company creates unique, proprietary maps and logistics, providing different software and software- 12 as-a-service (“SaaS”) solutions for various perspectives within relevant sectors. Id. TELEPORT 13 MOBILITY connects the demand for transportation with the mobility supply t0 optimize vehicle 14 utilization and efficiently transport people and products. With TELEPORT MOBILITY, 15 consumers make informed decisions when purchasing mobility services, drivers/client can select a 16 preferred route, and shipping companies maximize efficiencies When transporting goods, all While 17 simultaneously providing users up-to-the-minute vehicle location and tracking data, aggregated 18 among disparate platforms. Id. 19 Plaintiffs enjoy a robust portfolio of intellectual property rights. DaCosta, himself, along 20 withNORTHERN LIGHTS owns the entire right, title, and interest in and to the inventions claimed 21 in United States Application Nos. 16/222,817; 15/680,439; 16/038,487; 15/675,757; 62/539,706; 22 62/482,306; 62/426,549; 62/375,491; and 17/124,833, in addition t0 related international patent 23 applications filed in the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) in accordance With the 24 Patent Cooperation Treaty (“PCT”), Application Nos. PCT/USlS/043363 and PCT/US 1 8/043359, 25 Which have entered into national and regional phases in Australia, Canada, China, Singapore, Japan 26 and the European Patent Office (“EPO”) (collectively, the “patents”). TELEPORT MOBILITY 27 licenses rights to the patents from NORTHERN LIGHTS and DaCosta. Id. 11 5. In addition, 1Q. ludwig 3 AFC MEMO OF LAW ISO PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE MOTION vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv Case No. 2 1 -cv-00874-SI Case 3:21-cv-OO874-SI Document 14 Filed 02/10/21 Page 4 of 18 1 Plaintiffs own the entire right, title, and interest in and t0 all copyright material embodied in certain 2 software programs, including without limitation those entitled “BlueKiwi (Version A),” “BlueKiwi 3 (Version B),” “Black Lotus,” “Xelerate,” and “Xelerate Demo” (collectively, the “software” or the 4 “W0rks”). Id. 11 6. 5 TELEPORT MOBILITY has not published 0r publicly disclosed, performed, or displayed 6 the software. As a result, the confidential programs, code, methods, techniques, processes, UMLs, 7 diagrams, and data, as well as the scientific, technical, and engineering information, expressed in 8 and/or related t0 the software, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, 9 designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, and procedures, have been the subj ect 0f strict 10 measures by TELEPORT MOBILITY and NORTHERN LIGHTS to maintain the secrecy of such 11 information (collectively, “Technical Information and Know-How”). 1d. 1H] 7, 45. TELEPORT 12 MOBILITY also creates, compiles, and retains certain other financial, business, scientific, 13 technical, economic, 0r engineering information, including business and marketing plans, sales and 14 customer data and lists, vendor and supply information, sales forecasts, market forecasts, current 15 investor information, prospective investor information, patterns, plans, compilations, program 16 devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, and 17 codes, which information it also keeps secret (collectively, “Business Information”). Id. 1] 8. 18 Together, the Technical Information and Know-How and Business Information constitute 19 TELEPORT MOBILITY’s “trade secret” information because it derives independent economic 20 value, both actual and potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily 21 ascertainable through proper means by, another person who can obtain economic value from the 22 disclosure or use of the information. Id. 11 9. 23 TELEPORT MOBILITY owns all right, title, and interest in and to the marks TELEPORT 24 and TELEPORT MOBILITY, as claimed in the pending applications for registration 0f the marks 25 with the USPTO: TELEPORT (U.S. Serial No. 88/261,127), for use in International Class 009, 26 035, and O42 with software and related business services; and TELEPORT MOBILITY (U.S. Serial 27 No. 88/261, 1 5 1), likewise for use in International Class 009, 035, and 042 with software and related Id] 4 _l IUdWIQAPC MEMO OF LAW ISO PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE MOTION vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv Case No. 2 1 -cv-00874-SI Case 3:21-cv-OO874-SI Document 14 Filed 02/10/21 Page 5 of 18 1 business services (collectively, the “marks”). Id. 11 10. 2 TELEPORT MOBILITY first used the marks in commerce at least as early as February 8, 3 2019 for purposes of marketing, advertising, promoting and selling the software and its SaaS and 4 consulting services t0 others, including real-time intelligent dispatching technology for the mobility 5 industry. Id. 1] 11. TELEPORT MOBILITY’S use of the marks in the United States has been in 6 continuance since the date 0f first use. Id. 7 TELEPORT MOBILITY invested, and continues to invest, substantial time, effort and 8 financial resources promoting the marks in connection with the marketing and sale 0f its software 9 and services in interstate commerce. Id. 1112. The TELEPORT and TELEPORT MOBILITY marks 10 have become, through Widespread and favorable public acceptance and recognition, an asset of 11 substantial value as a symbol ofTELEPORT MOBILITY, its quality products and services, and its 12 goodwill. Id. The consuming public recognizes the marks and associate them with TELEPORT 13 MOBILITY. Id. The marks are inherently distinctive as applied t0 TELEPORT MOBILITY’S 14 goods and services bearing such marks. Id. 15 B. Conception and Development 0f Teleport Mobility Business and Technology. 16 More than five years ago, DaCosta and Coletti first conceived the idea ofbuilding a business 17 that offered users a single, simple, comprehensive way t0 facilitate and obtain ride-share services, 18 among multiple vendors. Id. 11 13. In late February 2016, they constructed the initial business plan. 19 Id. The idea grew and matured over the next several months with guidance and input from legal 20 and subject-matter experts. The founders sought intellectual property counsel with Attorney David 21 Preston in March 2016. Soon thereafter, DaCosta and Coletti approached SYWULA for purposes 22 of gauging his interest in advising on the project. Id. 11 13. 23 From this initial contact, DaCosta and Coletti eventually engaged SYWULA’s services as 24 a consultant, pursuant t0 the Consulting Agreement, dated August 22, 2016 (the “Consulting 25 Agreement”). Id. 11 14, Ex. 1. On top of bilateral confidentiality obligations contained in the 26 contract, SYWULA also agreed not to compete with the company and that “[a]ny intellectual 27 property, including patents, copyrights, trademarks or trade secrets arising under this Agreement Id] 5 _l IUdWIQAPC MEMO OF LAW ISO PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE MOTION vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv Case No. 2 1 -cv-00874-SI Case 3:21-cv-OO874-SI Document 14 Filed 02/10/21 Page 6 of 18 1 shall be assigned to [DaCosta and Coletti].” Id. 11 15, EX. 1 11 6. 2 As the business grew, SYWULA and DaCosta transitioned from partners in Xelerate to 3 shareholders ofTELEPORT MOBILITY. DaCosta Decl. 1] 20. On 0r about July 12, 2019, the two 4 formed the company under the laws ofNevada, with its headquarters in Sunnyvale, CA. Id. Xelerate 5 and DaCosta then assigned their entire right, title, and interest in and to their pending patent 6 applications t0 DaCosta and NORTHERN LIGHTS. Id., Ex. 5 7 SYWULA then assumed the role of secretary and treasurer for TELEPORT MOBILITY 8 and became a company employee, signing the Teleport Mobility, Inc. Employee Proprietary 9 Information and Inventions Agreement on November 19, 2019 (the “Employee Agreement”). 10 DaCosta Decl. 1] 20, Ex. 6. As with the 2016 Consulting Agreement, the Employee Agreement 11 imposed strict confidentiality, non-disclosure, and invention and copyright assignment obligations 12 upon SYWULA. DaCosta Decl. 11 22. Excluded from the invention assignment provisions were any 13 “Prior Inventions” SYWULA conceived, for Which he listed none. Id. Through subsequent third- 14 party investments, SYWULA’s equity stake in TELEPORT MOBILITY was (and still is) 15 approximately 45%. Id. 16 C. Sywula’s Illegal Conduct, Misappropriation 0f Plaintiffs’ Trade Secrets, and 17 Interference 18 The issue of inventorship became a point of contention in late 2020, ultimately leading to the 19 present dispute. During a series of meetings between November 17 - 19, 2020, SYWULA and 20 DaCosta sat down with Attorney Eleanor Musick, for purposes of discussing the pending 21 applications for the patents. Id. 11 25. When DaCosta explained the nature and extent of Coletti’s 22 contributions to the inventions claimed in the patents in comparison to SYWULA’S own, 23 SYWULA became visibly upset. Id. Specifically, DaCosta informed Attorney Musick that he and 24 Coletti were the original inventors. Id. In response, SYWULA challenged DaCosta and Attorney 25 Musick and insisted all such inventions were his. Id. SYWULA demanded that Attorney Musick 26 list him as the sole inventor on all pending applications for the patents and refused t0 accept an 27 accommodation that would name SYWULA, DaCosta, and Coletti as joint inventors. Id. Id] 6 _l IUdWIQAPC MEMO OF LAW ISO PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE MOTION vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv Case No. 2 1 -cv-00874-SI Case 3:21-cv-OO874-SI Document 14 Filed 02/10/21 Page 7 of 18 1 SYWULA’s relationship with TELEPORT MOBILITY and DaCosta quickly deteriorated. Id. 11 2 26. Since early December, 2020, SYWULA has undertaken the following malicious actions: 3 o In the early hours 0f December 4, 2020 SYWULA impersonated DaCosta’s work 4 email using IP Address: 76.88.115.254 (associated With DaCosta’s parents’ house) and 5 communicated With Ramnode support to setup a solus VPN that was unknown to DaCosta 6 and unauthorized by him 0r anyone at Teleport Mobility. Id. 11 26. Two days later, Teleport 7 Mobility’s Ramnode server was suspended because it was sending attacks to remote servers. 8 1d. 9 o SYWULA removed his personal belongings and company computer hardware from 10 the Sunnyvale offices sometime prior to December 14, Without contacting anyone at 11 TELEPORT MOBILITY. 1d. 11 27. 12 o On 0r about December 23, DaCosta was scheduled t0 present TELEPORT 13 MOBILITY, its business model, and the software to a prospective investor, who had already 14 contributed $100,000 to the company. Id. 1] 28. SYWULA disabled the software, thereby 15 sabotaging the presentation, which failed. Id. 16 o On December 30, SYWULA informed DaCosta of his decision to no longer work 17 with TELEPORT MOBILITY. Id. 1] 29. Nevertheless, SYWULA emailed DaCosta an 18 ultimatum to resume work, the very next day. Id. 19 o Throughout January 2021, SYWULA became increasingly hostile and belligerent 20 to DaCosta and Attorney Musick, wrongfully claiming SYWULA not only invented all the 21 technology described in the patents, but that SYWULA “invented” company trademarks, 22 too. Id. SYWULA’S interactions with them devolved further into threats; DaCosta would 23 “go t0 jail” and SYWULA would report Attorney Musick t0 the California State Bar. Id. 24 o In the early morning hours ofJanuary 12, 202 1, DaCosta received multiple messages 25 at his personal Gmail account from RamNode, LLC, Which provides cloud-based computer 26 services for TELEPORT MOBILITY. Id. 1] 30. Upon further investigation, it appears 27 SYWULA clandestinely accessed and/or hacked DaCosta’s personal email, work email, G- 28 1%. ludwigm 7 , IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII MEMO 0F LAW Iso PLAINTIFFs Ex PARTE MOTION Case No. 2 1 -cv-00874-SI Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 14 Filed 02/10/21 Page 8 of 18 1 Suite, and TELEPORT MOBILITY’s Ramnode account Without DaCosta’s knowledge 0r 2 consent, and used the account to surreptitiously terminate the RamNode services, thereby 3 deleting and destroying all data and files contained therein. Id. 4 o Two days after terminating that cloud server account, SYWULA sent DaCosta an 5 email 011 January 14, 2021 stating that he was quitting TELEPORT MOBILITY and would 6 be communicating with TELEPORT MOBILITY’s investors. Id. 11 32, Ex. 7. 7 o On January 14, 2021, SYWULA began t0 restrict access to TELEPORT 8 MOBILITY files stored on Teleport Mobility’s G-Suite server. Id. at 33. 9 o SYWULA then made himself “owner” of important G-Suite 10 folders/subfolders and files, including Business, Company, Finance, Operations, 11 Intellectual Property, Marketing, and Z-old, which previously were under DaCosta’s 12 ownership, custody, and control as the creator/owner of them. Id. 11 34. 1 3 o Through one of his own personal email addresses 14 (krzysztof.sywula@gmail.com), SYWULA made himself “owner” of TELEPORT 15 MOBILITY’S business plan, even though DaCosta wrote the entire business plan. Id. 11 35. 16 SYWULA also claimed ownership of Plaintiffs’ files linked to other SYWULA email 17 addresses (krzyfz@gmail.com and krz@teleportnow.i0). Id. 18 o SYWULA disabled DaCosta’s company email account, but eventually 19 restored access t0 it on January 20, only after DaCosta’s father personally requested 20 SYWULA do so. Id. 11 37. Such access was short-lived; SYWULA deleted DaCosta’s 21 company email account on January 29. Id. 1] 37. 22 o SYWULA accessed and made himself the sole administrator for 23 TELEPORT MOBILITY’s internal network, switch, access point, on-site servers, and 24 multiple cloud-based server accounts. Id. 1] 38. 25 o SYWULA took similar actions to grant himself exclusive access to and 26 control of, without limitation, TELEPORT MOBILITY’s DocuSign, Salesforce, Dropbox, 27 Lucidchart, Wrike, Linode, Vultr (2), AWS, domains, and “G Suite/Google Workspace” 28 1%. ludwigm 8 , IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII MEMO 0F LAW Iso PLAINTIFFS Ex PARTE MOTION Case No. 2 1 -cv-00874-SI Case 3:21-cv-OO874-SI Document 14 Filed 02/10/21 Page 9 of 18 1 productivity software, which host the entirety of TELEPORT MOBILITY’s software, 2 intellectual property materials, business documents, financial data, personnel files, books, 3 records, and other confidential, proprietary information, including the trade secrets. Id. 4 o SYWULA took down and blocked access to company domain names and 5 websites teleportnow.io and xelerateio. Id. 6 o SYWULA accessed, without authorization, company networks, files, 7 systems, and records to thereupon delete 0r share Plaintiffs’ files. Id. 11 40. 8 0 SYWULA deleted files from TELEPORT MOBILITY’S Dropbox account. 9 1d. 10 o SYWULA performed a data transfer request created from 11 alexis@teleportn0w.io t0 krz@teleportnow.io for apps Drive, Docs, Calendar, Currents, 12 Google Data Studio that DaCosta did not authorize. 13 o On February 5, 2021, 0n the same day that SYWULA was supposed to 14 relinquish his administrative access to TELEPORT MOBILITY’S accounts/services, 15 SYWULA accessed, without authorization, G-Suite and performed a user takeout, 16 completed a user takeout, and downloaded a user takeout. Id. 11 42. 17 D. Plaintiffs Reported SYWULA’s Illegal Conduct t0 Law Enforcement 18 On January 30, 2021 and February 1, 2021, DaCosta filed crime reports with the Santa Clara 19 Police Department and the Sunnyvale Office of Public Safety, including Incident No. T2100319. 20 Id. 1] 43. A Sunnyvale Public Safety Officer interviewed DaCosta regarding SYWULA’s actions 21 on February 1, 2021. Id. 22 On January 3 1, 2021, Plaintiffs sent a written demand to SYWULA that he immediately cease 23 and desist from the illegal conduct described herein. Id. 1] 44, EX. 8. SYWULA has failed t0 act 24 reasonably and comply with all of Plaintiffs’ demands to restore all files, systems, accounts, and 25 services, and cease his malicious actions. 26 /// 27 /// 28 Id] 9 _l IUdWIgAPC MEMO OF LAW ISO PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE MOTION vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv Case No. 2 1 -cv-00874-SI Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 14 Filed 02/10/21 Page 10 of 18 1 IV. ARGUMENT 2 T0 obtain preliminary relief, Plaintiffs must show: (1) a likelihood 0f success on the merits; (2) 3 a likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence 0f relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in their 4 favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def Counsel, Inc, 5 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Alternatively, “serious questions going t0 the merits and a balance 0f 6 hardships that tips sharply towards the plaintiff can support issuance 0f a preliminary injunction, 7 so long as the plaintiff also shows that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the 8 injunction is in the public interest.” Pyro Spectaculars N., Inc. v. Couza, 861 F. Supp. 2d 1079, 9 1087 (ED. Cal. 2021 (citation omitted). “The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is 10 identical to the standard for issuing a preliminary injunction.” Comet Techs. USA Inc. v. Beuerman, 11 18-CV-01441-LHK, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224356, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2018). 12 Both the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and the California Uniform Trade Secrets 13 Act (CUTSA) authorize injunctions to enjoin or prevent “any actual 0r threatened 14 misappropriation” of trade secrets. 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(A); Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.2(a)(same). 15 This Court should do so here to prevent irreparable damage t0 Plaintiffs, t0 uncover the full scope 16 of Defendant’s misconduct, and to stop Defendant from covering his tracks. 17 A. A Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction Are Needed to 18 Enjoin Defendant from Using or Disseminating Plaintiffs’ Trade Secrets 19 1. Plaintiffs are Highly Likelv to Succeed on the Merits of their Claims 20 Plaintiffs’ claims for trade secret misappropriation and breach 0f contract are clear and 21 compelling. Misappropriation of a trade secret is defined both under federal and state law as, among 22 other things: (a) "acquisition 0f a trade secret of another by a person Who knows or has reason to 23 know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means"; or (b) "disclosure or use 0f a trade 24 secret of another without express 0r implied consent by a person who used improper means to 25 acquire knowledge of the trade secret[.]" 18 U.S.C. § 1839(5); see also Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.1 (b) 26 (same). "Improper means" includes "theft," "misrepresentation," or "breach 0f a duty to maintain 27 secrecy." 18 U.S.C. § 1839(6); see also Cal. Civ. C0de§ 3426.1(a) (same). Similarly, and as a 1Q. ludwig 10 AFC MEMO OF LAW ISO PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE MOTION vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv Case No. 2 1 -cv-00874-SI Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 14 Filed 02/10/21 Page 11 of 18 1 condition of his employment, Defendant agreed not to disclose proprietary information in both his 2 consulting and employment agreements Which also forbade him from misappropriating Plaintiffs’ 3 confidential information. DaCost Decl. W 14, 21; EX. 1 (Consulting Agreement), Ex. 6 (Employee 4 Agreement). 5 This is exactly What Defendant did. As detail above, Defendant has wreaked havoc 0n 6 Teleport Mobility’s files, software, systems and accounts. Courts have frequently found a 7 likelihood of trade secret misappropriation and/or breach of contract - and issued TROs and 8 preliminary injunctions accordingly - under similar facts. See, e.g., Comet, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9 224356 (granting motion for TRO, expedited discovery, and evidence preservation where employee 10 downloaded over a hundred confidential documents from plaintiffs servers, saved them to an 11 external memory device, lied about it, and attempted t0 conceal his misconduct when confronted); 12 Pym, 861 F. Supp. 2d 1079 (granting TRO and motion for expedited discovery where employee 13 downloaded plaintiffs confidential documents and information); Henry Schein, Inc. v. Cook, No. 14 16-cv-03166-JST, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81369 (N.D. Cal. June 22, 2016) (granting TRO and 15 preliminary injunction enjoining defendant from accessing or using former employer's trade secrets 16 that she downloaded and emailed to herself in Violation ofher employment agreement, and ordering 17 defendant t0 preserve all evidence relating to her misappropriation). 18 There is no question that the Technical Information and Know-How and Business 19 Information reflect Plaintiffs’ trade secrets. Trade secrets constitute all forms offinancial, technical, 20 economic, engineering, and other types of business information, "including a formula, pattern, 21 compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that: (1) Derives independent 22 economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to the public or to other 23 persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and (2) Is the subject of efforts 24 that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy." Cal. CiV. Code§ 3426.1(d); see 25 also 18 U.S.C. § 1839(3) (same under DTSA, except also requiring that such information not be 26 "readily ascertainable through proper means"). 27 As explained above, the trade secrets at issue are comprised of Technical Information and Id] 11 _l IUdWIQAPC MEMO OF LAW ISO PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE MOTION vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv Case No. 2 1 -cv-00874-SI Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 14 Filed 02/10/21 Page 12 of 18 1 Know-How and Business Information required for a broad range 0f business functions, including 2 procurement, aggregating data from multiple external servers, standardizing and filtering data, 3 identifying optimal matches, securing optimal matches, and performing software automation to 4 continuously repeat these steps t0 identify/secure additional optimal matches for the purpose of 5 optimizing vehicle utilization. DaCosta Decl. 1] 45. Access t0 this information would be invaluable 6 to Plaintiffs’ competitors by enabling them insight into Plaintiffs’ innovation and t0 recreate similar 7 systems and processes with minimal effort and expense. Id. 11 46. Courts routinely find that this sort 8 of information qualifies as trade secrets. See, e.g., Softketeers, Inc. v. Regal W. Corp, No. SACV 9 19-519 JVS (JDEX), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171240, at *22 (C.D. Cal. May 6, 2019)(software 10 source code qualified as trade secret); Versaterm Inc. v. City ofSeattle, No. C16-1217JLR, 2016 11 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1251 17, at *19 (W.D. Wash. Sep. 13, 2016)(“software manuals...contain 12 information that likely derives independent economic value from not being known t0 [] 13 competitors”); Richmond Techs., Inc. v. Aumtech Bus. Sols., No. 11-CV-02460-LHK, 2011 U.S. 14 Dist. LEXIS 71269, at *64 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 201 1)(software company’s “source code, software, 15 or other technical methods or process” qualified as trade secrets); TM Funding, Inc. v. Impero 16 Techs., Ina, No. C 10-00202 JF (PVT), 2010 U.s. Dist. LEXIS 68893, at *15 (N.D. Cal. July 8, 17 2010)(“business plans and strategies” considered trade secrets). 18 Plaintiffs also undertake extensive measures t0 protect the secrecy 0f its trade secrets, 19 including, requiring employees to sign stringent confidentiality agreements and using password and 20 firewall-protected servers and accounts. DaCosta Decl. 1] 43. These measures are more than 21 reasonable under the circumstances to establish that the scripts at issue are protected as trade 22 secrets. See Posdata Co. v. Kim, No. 007-02504 RMW, 2007 U.s. Dist. LEXIS 48359, at * 14-15 23 (N.D. Cal. June 27, 2007) (finding, for TRO purposes, that plaintiffs use of confidentiality 24 agreements and internal security measures constituted reasonable measures t0 protect trade secrets); 25 Pyro, 861 F. Supp. 2d at 1090-91 (finding reasonable measures based on use of confidentiality 26 agreements, maintenance 0f secure network servers, password-restricted access, and limited access 27 by job function); TWFunding, Inc. v. Impero Techs., Ina, N0. C 10-00202 JF (PVT), 2010 U.S. 1Q. ludwig 12 AFC MEMO OF LAW ISO PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE MOTION vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv Case No. 2 1 -cv-00874-SI Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 14 Filed 02/10/21 Page 13 of 18 1 Dist. LEXIS 37064, at *13-14 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2010) (finding reasonable measures based on 2 use 0f confidentiality agreements and restricted employee access). 3 2. Plaintiffs will Suffer Imminent and Irreparable Iniurv Unless the Court Issues 4 Immediate Iniunctive Relief 5 "[A] Court's conclusion that [a] Plaintiff is likely to prevail on its trade secret 6 misappropriation claims supports a finding 0f irreparable harm." Comet, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7 224356, at *13. "This is because such losses would be difficult to quantify in terms 0f economic 8 value." Henry Schein, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81369, at *25. 9 Indeed, Plaintiffs stand to suffer injuries that cannot be repaired or quantified if the stolen 10 trade secrets are further misappropriated. As noted above disclosure of the Technical Information 1 1 and Know-How and Business Information would cause Plaintiffs significant irreparable injuries. 12 DaCosta Decl. W 47-49.1 In light 0f the fact that Defendant’s theft appears premeditated, and he has exhibited a clear intent to cause harm, there is a grave risk that Defendant transferred the files 14 outside the reach 0f Plaintiffs. An if he did, or if Plaintiffs have not uncovered all of Defendant’s 15 theft, Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm unless the Court takes immediate action to stop any 16 further misuse or dissemination of it trade secrets. Indeed "[i]n moving for a preliminary 17 injunction, [p]laintiffs are not required to prove that misappropriation actually has occurred - 1 8 [p]1aintiffs need only make a clear showing that misappropriation likely occuITed." Farmers Ins. 19 Exch. v. Steele Ins. Agency, Ina, No. 2:13-cv-00784-MCE-DAD, 2013 U.s. Dist. LEXIS 70098, 20 at *26-34 (E.D. Cal. May 16, 2013) (emphasis in original) (granting preliminary injunction Where 21 defendants downloaded massive amounts 0f confidential information in a span of several days, 22 demonstrating that "Defendants likely attempted to misappropriate" plaintiff’s data); Comet, 201 8 23 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224356, at * 14 ("Plaintiff‘s concerns are justifiably heightened because 0f 1 Although there is a split 0n the issue, some "courts in this district have presume[ d] that [a] Plaintiff Will 26 suffer irreparable harm if its proprietary information is misappropriated." Comet, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224356, at *13 (citations omitted) (Koh, D.J.); accord, e.g., TMXFunding, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27 37064, at *24 (same) (Fogel, D.J.); Albert's Organics, Inc. v. Holzman, 445 F. Supp. 3d 463, 474 (ND. Cal. 2020) (same) (Hamilton, D.J.). Tesla needs no presumption here in light of the clear irreparable harm 28 it Will suffer Without relief from the Court. Id] 13 _l IUdWIQAPC MEMO OF LAW ISO PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE MOTION vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv Case No. 2 1 -cv-00874-SI Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 14 Filed 02/10/21 Page 14 of 18 Defendant's conduct before his exit interview and Defendant's false representations t0 Plaintiff 2 during Defendant's exit interview"); Tesla, Inc. v. Khatilov, No. 4:21-cv-00528-YGR, 2021 U.S. 3 Dist. LEXIS 12484, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2021)(granting TRO where former employee 4 downloaded trade secrets from company server and was evasive when confronted). 5 6 3. Plaintiffs’ Iniuries Substantially Outweigh AnV Costs to Defendant for Complying 7 With The Requested TRO and Preliminary Iniunction 8 The balance of hardships tip sharply, indeed entirely, in Plaintiffs’ favor. "Courts have 9 found that the balance 0f hardships tips in favor of a plaintiff seeking an injunction which would 10 merely prohibit [the defendant] from misappropriating the trade secrets of [the plaintiff]." Farmers 11 Ins. Exch., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70098, at *38 (citations omitted); see also, e.g., Comet, 2018 12 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224356, at *14-15 (finding TRO "will result in little meaningful hardship to 13 Defendant" because "[t]he proprietary information at issue belongs to Plaintiff, not Defendant. 14 Thus, Plaintiff has a very strong interest in ensuring that the information is not disclosed. On the 15 other side, Defendant has little interest in disclosing 0r using the infonnation because such 16 disclosure or use is unauthorized"); Pyro, 861 F. Supp. 2d at 1092 (finding a preliminary injunction 17 "would not cause any significant hardship t0 defendant, because it would essentially only require 18 him to abide by existing law regarding the unauthorized use of another's trade secrets," and 19 "whatever harm defendant may suffer by such a narrow injunction is slight when compared to the 20 intangible harm PSI would suffer"). 21 Here, too, Defendant would suffer no prejudice by being enjoined from misusing or 22 disseminating trade secrets that he has no right to possess in the first place. Defendant would also 23 suffer no prejudice from being ordered t0 return any other of Plaintiffs’ materials in his possession. 24 T0 the extent Defendant may incur costs or inconvenience in complying with the injunction, it pales 25 in comparison to the irreparable harm that Plaintiffs stand to suffer, as specified above. 26 4. The Requested Relief Supports The Strong Public Interest in Favor 0f Protecting 27 Trade Secrets 28 fl] ludwi 14 -' gAPC MEMO 0F LAW Iso PLAINTIFFS’ Ex PARTE MOTION vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv Case No. 2 1 -cv-00874-SI Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 14 Filed 02/10/21 Page 15 of 18 1 The public interest factor weighs heavily in Plaintiffs’ favor as well. "[T]he public has a 2 strong interest in ensuring trade secrets are protected. Courts have recognized this strong public 3 interest in the injunctive relief context." Comet, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224356, at * 15-16 4 (collecting cases); see also, e.g., Pyro, 861 F. Supp. 2d at 1092-93 (California "has a strong policy 5 in favor 0f protecting trade secrets," and thus, "an injunction specifically focused on preventing 6 misuse 0f PSI's trade secrets to solicit PSI's customers would serve the policy of protecting trade 7 secrets While simultaneously allowing lawful competition"). 8 Plaintiffs’ sole purpose in bringing this motion is to protect their trade secrets and mitigate 9 their damages. The requested injunction is tailored to prevent and uncover unlawful activity, and it 10 would not bind anyone other than the Defendant. The injunction also would not prohibit Defendant 11 from seeking legitimate employment. The public interest is served by such a narrow and targeted 12 request. Henry Schein, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81369, at *27-28 ("Here, the injunction is limited 13 only to the Defendant's conduct. Moreover, the public interest is served by enabling the 14 protection of trade secrets."). 15 B. N0 Injunction Bond Is Necessary, Legally 0r Contractually 16 Federal Rule 0f Civil Procedure 65(c) "invests the district court With discretion as to the 17 amount of security required, if any." Jorgensen v. Cassiday, 320 F.3d 906, 919 (9th Cir. 2003) 18 (citations omitted). “The district court may dispense with the filing of a bond when it concludes 19 there is n0 realistic likelihood 0f harm to the defendant from enjoining his 0r her conduct." Id. No 20 bond is needed here because, as explained above, the Defendant will suffer n0 harm from 21 complying with an injunction that simply prohibits him from misappropriating trade secrets that d0 22 not belong to him. See Comet, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224356, at *16-17 (no bond necessary for a 23 TRO barring defendant from using plaintiffs trade secrets because "Defendant was never entitled 24 t0 disclose 0r use the information he took from [p]1aintiff," and thus, "there is n0 likelihood 0fharm 25 because the TRO would simply enjoin [d]efendant from doing something [d]efendant never had a 26 right to do in the first place"); Pyro, 861 F. Supp. 2d at 1098 (requiring no bond upon issuance of 27 preliminary injunction enjoining use of trade secrets downloaded from former employer, because Id] 15 _l IUdWIQAPC MEMO OF LAW ISO PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE MOTION vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv Case No. 2 1 -cv-00874-SI Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 14 Filed 02/10/21 Page 16 of 18 1 "the narrow injunction to be entered Will not preclude defendant from working in his chosen 2 occupation"). 3 Also, as a matter of contract, SYWULA acknowledged that Violation of the non-disclosure 4 terms of the Employee Agreement may cause TELEPORT MOBILITY irreparable harm and that 5 the company “shall have the right t0 enforce this Agreement and any of its provision by injunction, 6 speficic performance or other equitable relief, without bond...” DaCosta Decl. Ex. 6 11 7. Such 7 waivers are enforceable. 2die4kourt v. Hillair Capital Mgmt., LLC, No. SACV 16-01304 8 JVS(DFMX), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11821 1, at *33 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2016). 9 C. Expedited Discovery is Needed t0 uncover the Full Extent of Defendant’s 10 Misappropriation and Prevent Further Dissemination 0f Plaintiffs’ Trade 11 Secrets 12 In addition to a TRO enjoining filrther misappropriation 0f its trade secrets, Plaintiffs also 13 need immediate discovery to determine whether Defendant stole any other information, kept copies 14 of files that Plaintiffs were not able to find, and/or disclosed Plaintiffs’ trade secrets t0 anyone else. 15 Specifically - and as further detailed in the Proposed Order - Plaintiffs request (1) an immediate 16 return of all of Plaintiffs’ property in his possession; (2) an identification of all other media 0n 17 which he stored Plaintiffs’ trade secrets; (3) the production of all such media for forensic imaging; 18 (4) provision of all login credentials needed to access that media; and (5) an identification 0f any 19 other persons, entities, or locations Where Defendant may have disseminated or disclosed Plaintiffs’ 20 information. 21 "The standard for expedited discovery is 'good cause.’ Good cause may be found where the 22 need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the 23 prejudice to the responding party." Comet, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224356, at *19-21 (citation 24 omitted). Courts have repeatedly ordered such discovery in analogous circumstances where an 25 employee steals massive amounts of trade secrets from an employer. Id. (finding good cause for 26 expedited discovery "so that Comet can better understand the nature and extent of Beuerman’s 27 misappropriation and use 0f Comet’s trade secrets," including an identification of the information 1Q. ludwig 16 AFC MEMO OF LAW ISO PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE MOTION vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv Case No. 2 1 -cv-00874-SI Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 14 Filed 02/10/21 Page 17 of 18 1 and property taken, the location of that property or information, and an identification of Where 2 information had been disclosed); see also, e.g., TMX Funding, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37064, at 3 *25-26 (granting preliminary injunction requiring defendants "to return the Teledex laptops and 4 any other equipment or materials containing [its] proprietary, confidential, or trade secret 5 information"); Posdata, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48359, at *27-28 (granting request for expedited 6 discovery "to further uncover [d]efendants' unlawful conduct prior to the preliminary injunction 7 hearing"); Pyro, 861 F. Supp. 2d at 1093-94 (maintaining TRO "requiring collection, production, 8 and the subsequent destruction of any remnants of all PSI documents, databases, and information 9 in defendant's actual 0r constructive possession, or in the actual or constructive possession 0f those 10 acting in concert or active participation with defendant"). 11 Defendant’s extensive interference With Plaintiffs’ numerous accounts, deletion of files, 12 repeated false claims of ownership over Plaintiffs’ trade secrets, plus his admission of his intent to 13 contact investors, indicate a premeditated plot to steal sensitive information from Plaintiffs and use 14 0r disseminate it for other purposes, whether to cause harm to Plaintiffs’ or enrich himself at the 15 expense 0f Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs must know what Defendant did with the information he 16 misappropriate as soon as possible in order to mitigate their damages. See Comet, 2018 U.S. Dist. 17 LEXIS 224:356, at * 19-21 ("Quickly determining What information Defendant removed from 18 Plaintiff, and whether and how Plaintiffs information is being used by Plaintiff‘s competitors is 19 essential in order to minimize any harm t0 Plaintiff‘s competitive position"). 20 D. Preservation Order is Needed t0 Prevent the Destruction 0f Essential Evidence 21 The Court may issue an evidence preservation order beyond the ordinary duty t0 preserve 22 evidence if there is "a significant concern that potentially relevant evidence Will be destroyed 23 causing harm to the opposing party." Bright Solsfor Dyslexia, Inc. v. Doe, N0. 15-cv-01618-JSC, 24 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117252, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2015) (citations omitted). That concern is 25 well-founded here, because the Defendant has already demonstrated a proclivity to destroy 26 evidence and renege on commitments to restore files and account access. He has deleted email 27 accounts, files, the history 0f his activity on DropBox, and performed a user takeout, even after 1Q. ludwig 17 AFC MEMO OF LAW ISO PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE MOTION vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv Case No. 2 1 -cv-00874-SI Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 14 Filed 02/10/21 Page 18 of 18 1 asserting to Plaintiffs that he had restored everything and would n0 longer interfere. DaCosta Decl. 2 1W 40-42. An evidence preservation order is necessary to prevent him from going any further. See 3 Comet, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224356, at *17-19 (issuing preservation order where defendant 4 downloaded plaintiffs information to personal storage media and lied about it when confronted; 5 "Given this backdrop, the Court finds that there is a significant risk that [d]efendant will destroy 6 the information at issue," that "irreparable harm is likely t0 result t0 Plaintiff if the evidence is 7 destroyed because [p]laintiff Will be unable to determine the extent 0f the damage to its business," 8 and that "it is Within [d]efendant’s capacity t0 maintain the evidence that remains because all 9 [d]efendant needs to do is return a physical device t0 Plaintiff, or refrain from deleting digital 10 information"); Henry Schein, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81369 at *31-32 (ordering defendant on TRO 11 and preliminary injunction t0 preserve evidence concerning misappropriation 0f trade secrets); 12 Posdata, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48359, at *28 (ordering both parties as part 0f trade secret TRO 13 "to preserve all evidence potentially relevant to a claim or defense"). 14 V. CONCLUSION 15 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant their emergency 16 application for a Temporary Restraining Order, Order to Show Cause, and Evidence Preservation 17 Order as set forth in the Proposed Order. 1 8 1 9 20 Dated: February 10, 2021 Respectfully Submitted 21 By: /s/Frederic G. Ludwig, III Frederic G. Ludwig, III 22 Andrew J. Kubik LUDWIG, APC 23 Attorneys for Plaintiffs TELEPORT MOBILITY, INC. and NORTHERN 24 LIGHTS, LLC 25 26 27 28 1Q. ludwig 18 AFC MEMO OF LAW ISO PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE MOTION vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv Case No. 2 1 -cv-00874-SI “I Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 14-1 Filed 02/10/21 Page 1 of 6 1 Frederic G. Ludwig, III (CA Bar No. 205332) eric.ludwig@ludwigiplaw.com 2 Andrew J. Kubik (CA Bar N0. 246902) andrew.kubik@ludwigiplaw.com 3 LUDWIG, APC 12463 Rancho Bernardo Road, No. 532 San Diego, California 92128 5 Telephone: 858-945-43 14 6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs TELEPORT MOBILITY, INC. 7 and NORTHERN LIGHTS, LLC 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT 0F CALIFORNIA 10 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 11 12 TELEPORT MOBILITY, INC., a Nevada Case No. 5:21-cv-00874-SI corporation; and NORTHERN LIGHTS, 13 LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, DECLARATION 0F FREDERIC LUDWGI IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF EXPARTE MOTION AND EXPARTE MOTION FOR TEMPORARY 1 5 V RESTRAINING ORDER, ORDER TO ' SHOW CAUSE RE: PRELIMINARY 16 KRZYSZTOF SYWULA, an individual, INJUNCTION’ AND EVIDENCE 14 Plaintiffs, PRESERVATION ORDER 17 Defendant“ Date: February 11, 2021 18 Time: 19 Courtroom: 1 20 Judge: Hon. Susan Illston 21 22 I, Frederic G. Ludwig, III, declare as follows: 23 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice before all of the courts of the State of 24 California and am admitted to practice in this Court. I am over the age 18 and I have personal 25 knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration. If called as a Witness for this purpose, I could 26 and would testify competently under oath to the facts stated herein. 27 2. I am a shareholder of the law firm 0f Ludwig, APC, counsel 0f record for Plaintiffs 28 TELEPORT MOBILITY, INC. (“Teleport Mobility”) andNORTHERN LIGHTS, LLC (“Northern 1 DECLARATION OF LUDWIG IN SUPPORT OF EXPARTE MOTION FOR TRO Case No. 5 :2 1 -cv-00874-SI [E- _. ludWIgAPC INYELLECYIIAL PIO'(RYI I‘lM an anchvuA ttttttttttttt Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 14-1 Filed 02/10/21 Page 2 of 6 Lights”). 3. On January 31, 2021, on behalf of Teleport Mobility and Northern Lights, I sent a written demand to Defendant KRZYSZTOF SYWULA (“Sywula”) that he immediately cease and desist from the illegal conduct described therein. Attached as Exhibit 8 t0 the Declaration ofAlexis DaCosta is a true and correct copy 0fmy January 3 1 , 2021 correspondence t0 Mr. Sywula. 4. In the cease and desist letter, we gave Sywula until February 1, 2021 to acknowledge receipt ofthe correspondence and n0 later than the close 0fbusiness on February 3, 2021 t0 provide a substantive response, indicating his willingness t0 comply with my clients’ demands. Sywula did not respond 0n February 1 and did not indicate a Willingness to cooperate or otherwise refrain from further unlawful conduct by February 3. 5. Instead, 0n February 3, 2021, I received an email message from Attorney Melissa L. Bustarde, indicating she was “business counsel for Mr. Sywula.” Attorney Bustarde further stated she had “other commitments today and would not be able t0 respond by [the] 5pm deadline. Ihope to get you a substantive response by the end of next week.” 6. Ireplied to Attorney Bustarde that same day and informed her, given the urgency of the matter, my clients could not wait. I then forwarded Attorney Bustarde a copy of the ECF confirmation email generated by this Court, after we filed the complaint in the instant proceedings, and advised Attorney Bustarde that Teleport Mobility and Northern Lights had initiated a lawsuit against Sywula. In closing, I asked Attorney Bustarde if she had authority to accept service 0f process on behalf of her client. 7. On the afternoon 0f February 4, 2021, after receiving no response from Attorney Bustarde, I engaged Knox Attorney Services for purposes of arranging for personal service 0f the summons, complaint, and other related materials on Sywula, at his place of residence. 8. On Friday, February 5, 2021, my law partner and I received a call from Attorney Drew Koning, who stated he was settlement counsel for Sywula, and that he did not represent Mr. Sywula with regard to any potential forthcoming litigation at that time. In the conversation that followed, the parties discussed the possibility 0f an early resolution 0f their dispute, Without the need for further litigation. Teleport Mobility and Northern Lights were certainly amenable t0 that 2 DECLARATION OF LUDWIG IN SUPPORT OF EXPARTE MOTION FOR TRO Case No. 5 :2 1 -cv-00874-SI an anchvuA ttttttttttttt Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 14-1 Filed 02/10/21 Page 3 of 6 and Attorney Koning represented that Sywula was, too. 9. I explained t0 Attorney Koning that a crucial first step toward resolution would be for Sywula to return, restore, and reinstate access, control, and all related files and data stored in Teleport Mobility’s computers, networks, systems, and servers. To that end, Sywula sent email messages directly t0 me 0n February 5 and 6, 2021, ostensibly conveying access credentials to Teleport Mobility’s electronic resources. 10. Teleport Mobility was not satisfied with the information provided by Sywula, Which they deemed incomplete, inaccurate, and potentially evasive. As a fufiher means t0 achieve early resolution, on Monday, February 8, 2021, my firm provided Attorney Koning with a proposed stipulated preliminary injunction, enjoining and restraining Sywula from, among other things, using 0r disclosing Plaintiffs’ trade secrets, and “return and restore t0 TELEPORT MOBILITY, n0 later than 6:00 pm (Pacific Standard Time) on February 11, 202 1 , administrative and/or exclusive access to and control of Teleport Mobility’s internal networks, switch, access points, on-site servers, cloud-based server accounts, 0r related services, including without limitation, TELEPORT MOBILITY’s DocuSign, Salesforce, Dropbox, Lucidchart, Wrike, Linode, Vultr (2), Ramnode, AWS, domains and “G Suite/Google Workspace” productivity software. . ..” 11. In a subsequent email to Attorney Koning on February 8, I informed him that Knox Attorney Services had made three unsuccessful attempts to personally serve Sywula - no one answered the door - and I asked Attorney Koning t0 convey our request that Sywula accept service. Attorney Koning later told me that Sywula was traveling. 12. Through counsel, Sywula objected to Teleport Mobility’s draft stipulated preliminary injunction. As a compromise, on February 9, I then provided Attorney Koning with a comprehensive list 0f all Teleport Mobility internal networks, switches, access points, on-site servers, cloud-based server accounts, or related services for Which Sywula had yet to provide full, complete, 0r accurate access credentials, and/or administrative/exclusive control. 13. Attorney Koning conveyed Sywula’s response to this list of access issues on February 10, but Teleport Mobility still considered them incomplete and evasive. 14. Meanwhile, Knox Attorney Services notified me that they had tried and failed to 3 DECLARATION OF LUDWIG IN SUPPORT OF EXPARTE MOTION FOR TRO Case No. 5 :2 1 -cv-00874-SI n1 luriLmnuA nnnnnnnnnnnnn Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 14-1 Filed 02/10/21 Page 4 of 6 personally serve Sywula at his residence at the following dates and times: a. 02/05/21 03:16P - Attempted service. There was no answer at the door. b. 02/06/21 07:15A - Attempted service. Still no answer at the door. c. 02/07/21 07:45A - Attempted service. There was n0 answer at the door. d. 02/08/21 05:21P - Attempted service. There was no answer at the door. e. 02/09/21 06:18P - Attempted service. There was still n0 answer at the door. 15. On February 10, 2021 at approximately 10:00 p.m., pursuant to Local Rule 65-1(b), my firm provided notice t0 Defendant Krzysztof Sywula and his settlement counsel, Drew Koning, by sending the Notice of Motion and Ex Parte Motion for TRO, Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support ofEX Parte Motion for TRO, the Declarations ofFrederic Ludwig and Alexis DaCosta, and the Proposed TRO Via email to the email addresses krzysztofm.sywula@intel.com; krz@teleportnow.io; krzysztof.sywu1a@gmail.c0m and drew@kzllp.com. 16. Attached hereto as Exhibit 9 and incorporated herein by reference is a true and correct copy of the February 10, 2021 message I received from Knox Attorney Service, regarding service of process on Sywula. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws 0f the State 0f Washington and United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on February 10, 2021 1n San Diego, CaliforniaQ BM?Ow/(A-fik /F¥ederlc G. Ludwigw‘ 4 DECLARATION OF LUDWIG IN SUPPORT OF EXPARTE MOTION FOR TRO Case No. 5 :2 1 -cv-00874-SI Exhibit 9 Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 14-1 Filed 02/10/21 Page 5 of 6 Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 14-1 Filed 02/10/21 Page 6 of 6 Frederic Ludwig From: Matthew Jensen Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 10:06 AM To: Frederic Ludwig Cc: Status; Traci Fish Subject: RE: K# 767297-01 RE: Service of Process - Defendant Krzysztof Sywula Importance: High Knox Fi|e#: 0767297-01 Subject : KRZYSZTOF SYWULA, AN INDIVIDUAL Schddr #1: 640 EPIC WAY UNIT 111 SAN JOSE CA 95134 (Res) Date Time Description 02/05/21 03:16P Attempted service. There was no answer at the door. 02/06/21 07:15A Attempted service. Still no answer at the door. 02/07/21 07:45A Attempted service. There was no answer at the door. 02/08/21 05:21P Attempted service. There was no answer at the door. 02/09/21 06:18P Attempted service. There was still no answer at the door. We have reached our maximum number attempts at the given address. We will need an alternative address or your authorization to perform a stake-out. If you would like us to continue attempting the current address(s), please note that there will be additional charges involved. We will place this on a five day hold, or until we hear back from you on how to proceed. Thank you Matthew Jensen Knox Attorney Service 1550 Hotel Circle North, Suite 440 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone (619) 685-4208 | Fax (888)-759-3636 Website: https://www.KnoxServices.com | Visit our website for online ordering andstatus updates! "Our People Make us Number One " © Please consider the environmnt before printing this enail. ****************************************************************************** This e-mail communication is the property of Knox Attorney Service and sender. It is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, distribution or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact sender by e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Warning: Although Knox has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this email, Knox cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attachments. From: Frederic Ludwig [mailto:Eric.Ludwig@|udwigiplaw.com] Sent: Monday, February 08, 2021 3:30 PM To: Matthew Jensen Subject: RE: K# 767297-01 RE: Service of Process - Defendant Krzysztof Sywula QONUIAUJN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 15 Filed 02/10/21 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION TELEPORT MOBILITY, INC., a Nevada Case NO- 5121-CV-00874-SI corporation; and NORTHERN LIGHTS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, [PROPOSED] TEMPORARYRESTAINING AND EVIDENCE Plaintiffs, PRESERVATION ORDERS V Judge Susan Illston KRZYSZTOF SYWULA, an individual, complaint Filed: February 3= 2021 Defendant. On February 10, 2021, Plaintiffs TELEPORT MOBILITY, INC. (“TELEPORT MOBILITY”) and NORTHERN LIGHTS, LLC (“NORTHERN LIGHTS”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed their Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order, Order t0 Show Cause re: Preliminary Injunction, and Evidence Preservation Order With this Court. The Court, having considered the argument of counsel and papers submitted with this matter, and for good cause shown, HEREBY ORDERS that the Application is GRANTED, as more fully set forth herein. Defendant KRZYSZTOF SYWULA (“SYWULA or “Defendant”) is hereby notified ofhis right to apply to the Court for modification 0r dissolution of the Order 0n two (2) days’ notice, 0r such shorter notice as the Court may allow. 1 [PROPOSED] TEMPORARY RESTAINING AND EVIDENCE PRESERVATION ORDERS Case No. 5:21-cv-000874-SI QONUI-bUJN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 15 Filed 02/10/21 Page 2 of 8 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER The Court has found that good cause exists for issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order, as Plaintiffs have shown: (1) there is a substantial likelihood that Plaintiffs will succeed on the merits 0ftheir claims against Defendant for misappropriation 0ftrade secrets and breach 0f contract Via unauthorized accessing and downloading after resigning from the employ of TELEPORT MOBILITY; (2) absent the issuance ofpreliminary injunctive reliefPlaintiffs Will suffer immediate and irreparable injury due to Defendant’s use or disclosure of Plaintiffs’ trade secrets; (3) such injuries substantially outweigh any costs to SYWULA that may result from granting this motion, Which is intended t0 preserve the status quo; and (4) the requested relief supports the strong public interest in favor of protecting trade secrets. Pending hearing on the Order to Show Cause, Defendant KRZYSZTOF SYWULA, as well as any persons in active concert with him, is HEREBY RESTRAINED, ENJOINNED, AND ORDERED as follows: 1. ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from obtaining, retaining, using, transmitting, disseminating, or disclosing any ofTELEPORT MOBILITY’S: a. confidential programs, source code, methods, techniques, processes, UMLs, diagrams, and data, as well as the scientific, technical, and engineering information, related to the patentsl and the software} including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, UMLs, diagrams, and procedures (collectively, “Technical Information and Know- How”); and b. scientific, technical, economic, 0r engineering information, including business and 1 United States Application Nos. 16/222,817; 15/680,439; 16/038,487; 15/675,757; 62/539,706; 62/482,306; 62/426,549; 62/375,491; and 17/124,833, in addition t0 related international patent applications filed in the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) in accordance With the Patent Cooperation Treaty (“PCT”), Application Nos. PCT/USlS/O43363 and PCT/US 1 8/043359, which have entered into national and regional phases in Australia, Canada, China, Japan, Singapore, and the European Patent Office (“EPO”) (collectively, the “patents”). 2 Relevant software programs include, Without limitation, those entitled “BlueKiwi (Version A),” “BlueKiwi (Version B),” “Black Lotus,” “Xelerate,” and “Xelerate Demo” (collectively, the “software” or the “works”). 2 [PROPOSED] TEMPORARY RESTAINING AND EVIDENCE PRESERVATION ORDERS Case No. 5 :2 1 -cv-0008 74-SI QONUIAUJN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 15 Filed 02/10/21 Page 3 0f 8 marketing plans, sales and customer data and lists, vendor and supply information, sales forecasts, market forecasts, current investor information, prospective investor information, patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, and codes (collectively, “Business Information”), as well as business and financial information not otherwise accessible t0 an outside shareholder, that Defendant downloaded, transferred, or otherwise obtained from TELEPORT MOBILITY’s computers, networks, systems, and/or servers, including any information contained within or deriving from those files (together, the “TELEPORT MOBILITY Trade Secrets”); 2. ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from accessing, using, modifying, deleting, destroying, relocating, or blocking access t0 any of TELEPORT MOBILITY’s internal networks, switch, access points, on-site servers, cloud-based server accounts, or related services, including without limitation, TELEPORT MOBILITY’s DocuSign, Salesforce, Dropbox, Lucidchart, Wrike, Linode, Vultr (2), Ramnode, AWS, domains and “G Suite/Google Workspace” productivity software, including any information contained Within or deriving from those computers, networks, systems, and/or servers; 3. To the extent not already done, REQUIRED t0 return and restore t0 TELEPORT MOBILITY, within three (3) days of this Order, administrative and/or exclusive access to and control ofTeleport Mobility’s internal networks, switch, access points, on-site servers, cloud-based server accounts, or related services, including Without limitation, TELEPORT MOBILITY’S DocuSign, Salesforce, Dropbox, Lucidchart, Wrike, Linode, Vultr (2), Ramnode, AWS, domains and “G Suite/Google Workspace” productivity software; 4. To the extent not already done, REQUIRED to return t0 TELEPORT MOBILITY, within three (3) days of this Order, all TELEPORT MOBILITY equipment, tangible materials, and information that remain in Defendant’s possession, custody, or control, including but not limited t0 any emails, files, records, 0r other documents that Defendant downloaded, removed, or otherwise obtained from TELEPORT MOBILITY, Whether original 0r duplicate; 5. T0 the extent not already done, REQUIRED t0 identify for TELEPORT MOBILITY, 3 [PROPOSED] TEMPORARY RESTAINING AND EVIDENCE PRESERVATION ORDERS Case No. 5 :2 1 -cv-0008 74-SI QONUIAUJN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 15 Filed 02/10/21 Page 4 of 8 within three (3) days of this Order, all other desktop and laptop computers, internal and external hard drives, USB storage devices, flash drives, thumb drives, memory cards, read/writable optical media (including CD-ROMs and DVD-ROMS), cloud storage accounts (including Dropbox), email accounts, tablet devices (including iPads), smartphones, other storage devices 0r accounts, 0r hard copy documents (collectively “Media”), belonging to or in Defendant’s possession, custody, or control, that contain any TELEPORT MOBILITY Trade Secrets (together, the “Identified Media”); 6. T0 the extent not already done, REQUIRED to produce to TELEPORT MOBILITY, within three (3) days of this Order, the Identified Media, or allow TELEPORT MOBILITY’s agents, including any computer forensic experts, to forensically preserve and mirror/image the Identified Media (which mirrored data shall be kept confidential by TELEPORT MOBILITY until such time as the Court re-designates any portion thereof under a protective order); 7. To the extent not already done, REQUIRED t0 provide t0 TELEPORT MOBILITY, Within three (3) days 0f this Order, all logins, user IDs, passwords, and any other processes necessary to obtain access to any operating system, database, server, software, file, 0r other storage location for the Identified Media within Defendant’s possession, custody, 0r control; and 8. T0 the extent not already done, REQUIRED t0 identify for TELEPORT MOBILITY, Within three (3) days of this Order, any other persons, entities, 0r locations (including any Media) not Within Defendant’s possession, custody, 0r control, t0 Which Defendant has transmitted, disseminated, disclosed, or stored any TELEPORT MOBILITY Trade Secrets. The Temporary Restraining Order granted herein on , 2021 at shall expire on , 2021 at ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Defendant KRZYSZTOF SYWULA is further ORDERED to appear on , 2021 at in to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be granted and why Defendant, as well as any persons in active concert With him, should not be ORDERED, pending trial as follows: 1. ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from obtaining, retaining, using, transmitting, disseminating, or disclosing any 0fTELEPORT MOBILITY’s: 4 [PROPOSED] TEMPORARY RESTAINING AND EVIDENCE PRESERVATION ORDERS Case No. 5 :2 1 -cv-0008 74-SI QONUIAUJN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 15 Filed 02/10/21 Page 5 of 8 a. confidential programs, source code, methods, techniques, processes, UMLs, diagrams, and data, as well as the scientific, technical, and engineering information, related to the patents3 and the software,4 including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, UMLs, diagrams, and procedures (collectively, “Technical Information and Know- How”); and b. scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including business and marketing plans, sales and customer data and lists, vendor and supply information, sales forecasts, market forecasts, current investor information, prospective investor information, patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, and codes (collectively, “Business Information”); as well as business and financial information not otherwise accessible t0 an outside shareholder, that Defendant downloaded, transferred, or otherwise obtained from TELEPORT MOBILITY’s computers, networks, systems, and/or servers, including any information contained within or deriving from those files (together, the “TELEPORT MOBILITY Trade Secrets”); 2. ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from accessing, using, modifying, deleting, destroying, relocating, or blocking access t0 any of TELEPORT MOBILITY’S internal networks, switch, access points, on-site servers, cloud-based server accounts, or related services, including without limitation, TELEPORT MOBILITY’s DocuSign, Salesforce, Dropbox, Lucidchart, Wrike, Linode, Vultr (2), Ramnode, AWS, domains and “G Suite/Google Workspace” productivity software, including any information contained within or deriving from those computers, networks, systems, 3 United States Application Nos. 16/222,817; 15/680,439; 16/038,487; 15/675,757; 62/539,706; 62/482,306; 62/426,549; 62/375,491; and 17/124,833, in addition t0 related international patent applications filed in the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) in accordance With the Patent Cooperation Treaty (“PCT”), Application Nos. PCT/USlS/O43363 and PCT/US 1 8/043359, which have entered into national and regional phases in Australia, Canada, China, Japan, Singapore, and the European Patent Office (“EPO”) (collectively, the “patents”). 4 Relevant software programs include, Without limitation, those entitled “BlueKiwi (Version A),” “BlueKiwi (Version B),” “Black Lotus,” “Xelerate,” and “Xelerate Demo” (collectively, the “software” or the “works”). 5 [PROPOSED] TEMPORARY RESTAINING AND EVIDENCE PRESERVATION ORDERS Case No. 5 :2 1 -cv-0008 74-SI QONUIAUJN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 15 Filed 02/10/21 Page 6 of 8 and/or servers; 3. To the extent not already done, REQUIRED t0 return and restore t0 TELEPORT MOBILITY, within three (3) days of this Order, administrative and/or exclusive access to and control ofTeleport Mobility’s internal networks, switch, access points, on-site servers, cloud-based server accounts, or related services, including Without limitation, TELEPORT MOBILITY’S DocuSign, Salesforce, Dropbox, Lucidchart, Wrike, Linode, Vultr (2), Ramnode, AWS, domains and “G Suite/Google Workspace” productivity software; 4. To the extent not already done, REQUIRED to return t0 TELEPORT MOBILITY, Within three (3) days 0f this Order, all TELEPORT MOBILITY equipment, tangible materials, and information that remain in Defendant’s possession, custody, or control, including but not limited t0 any emails, files, records, 0r other documents that Defendant downloaded, removed, or otherwise obtained from TELEPORT MOBILITY, Whether original 0r duplicate; 5. T0 the extent not already done, REQUIRED t0 identify for TELEPORT MOBILITY, Within three (3) days 0f this Order, all other desktop and laptop computers, internal and external hard drives, USB storage devices, flash drives, thumb drives, memory cards, read/writable optical media (including CD-ROMs and DVD-ROMS), cloud storage accounts (including Dropbox), email accounts, tablet devices (including iPads), smartphones, other storage devices or accounts, 0r hard copy documents (collectively “Media”), belonging to or in Defendant’s possession, custody, or control, that contain any TELEPORT MOBILITY Trade Secrets (together, the “Identified Media”); 6. To the extent not already done, REQUIRED to produce to TELEPORT MOBILITY, within three (3) days of this Order, the Identified Media, or allow TELEPORT MOBILITY’S agents, including any computer forensic experts, to forensically preserve and mirror/image the Identified Media (Which mirrored data shall be kept confidential by TELEPORT MOBILITY until such time as the Court re-designates any portion thereof under a protective order); 7. T0 the extent not already done, REQUIRED to provide to TELEPORT MOBILITY, within three (3) days 0f this Order, all logins, user IDs, passwords, and any other processes necessary to obtain access to any operating system, database, server, software, file, 0r other storage location for the Identified Media within Defendant’s possession, custody, 0r control; and 6 [PROPOSED] TEMPORARY RESTAlNING AND EVIDENCE PRESERVATION ORDERS Case No. 5 :2 1 -cv-0008 74-SI QONUIAUJN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 15 Filed 02/10/21 Page 7 of 8 8. T0 the extent not already done, REQUIRED to identify for TELEPORT MOBILITY, within three (3) days of this Order, any other persons, entities, 0r locations (including any Media) not Within Defendant’s possession, custody, 0r control, to Which Defendant has transmitted, disseminated, disclosed, or stored any TELEPORT MOBILITY Trade Secrets. This Order to Show Cause and supporting papers shall be served on Defendant no later than , 2021 by hand-delivery 0r electronically, including email. Any opposition papers to this OSC shall be served by hand-delivery or electronically n0 later than , 2021 at p.m., and be filed by hand-delivery or electronically at the same time. Any reply papers in support of this OSC shall be served by hand-delivery or electronically no later than , 2021 at p.m., and be filed electronically at that time. EVIDENCE PRESERVATION ORDER IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT: Defendant KZRYSZTOF SYWULA, as well as any persons in active concert 0r participation with him, is hereby ORDERED to preserve all evidence in accordance with applicable federal and state rules, and to CEASE, DESIST, and REFRAIN from deleting, destroying, removing altering, modifying, concealing, spoliating, 0r secreting any documents, data or information relating to this lawsuit in any way, not matter where such information resides, including any documents 0r information stored on any computer 0r other Media (as defined in the Temporary Restraining Order). This Order includes all documents relating t0 the TELEPORT MOBILITY Trade Secrets (as defined in the Temporary Restraining Order), SYWULA’s employment with Plaintiffs, and its predecessors, as well as their respective employees, contractors, customers, competitors, vendors, suppliers, and/or agents. IT IS SO ORDERED Dated: February _, 2021 7 [PROPOSED] TEMPORARY RESTAINING AND EVIDENCE PRESERVATION ORDERS Case No. 5 :2 1 -cv-0008 74-SI QONUIAUJN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 3:21-cv-00874-SI Document 15 Filed 02/10/21 Page 8 of 8 HON. SUSAN ILLSTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 [PROPOSED] TEMPORARY RESTAINING AND EVIDENCE PRESERVATION ORDERS Case No. 5 :2 1 -cv-0008 74-SI Exhibit C United States District Court Northern District 0f California .p KOOOQQUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 3:21-cv-00874-Sl Document 30 Filed 03/07/21 Page 1 0f 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TELEPORT MOBILITY, INC, et a1., Case No. 21-CV-00874-SI Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY V' INJUNCTION AND EVIDENCE PRESERVATION KRZYSZTOF SYWULA, Re: Dkt. N0. 13 Defendant. On March 3, 2021, the Court held a hearing on plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”), order t0 show cause, expedited discovery, and evidence preservation order. During the hearing, the parties stipulated t0 converting the hearing 0n plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO into a hearing for preliminary injunction. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS a limited preliminary injunction and evidence preservation order. BACKGROUND This matter arose in connection with defendant Krzysztof Sywula’s departure from plaintiffs Teleport Mobility, Inc. and Northern Lights, L.L.C. (collectively “plaintiffs”). On February 3, 2021, plaintiffs filed a complaint against defendant alleging (1) Violation 0f the Defend Trade Secrets Act, (2) Violation of California Uniform Trade Secrets Act, (3) breach of contract, (4) Violation of the Comprehensive Compute data Access and Fraud Act, (5) Violation of Lanham Act, (6) conversion, (7) intentional interference With Contractual Relations, (8) breach 0f fiduciary duty, and (9) unfair business practices. Dkt. No. 1. On February 10, 202 1 , plaintiffs filed an exparte application for a TRO, order t0 show cause, expedited discovery, and evidence preservation order (“motion”). Dkt. N0. 13. On February 23, United States District Court Northern District 0f California KOOONQ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 3:21-cv-00874-Sl Document 30 Filed 03/07/21 Page 2 0f 5 2021, Christopher L. Walters filed an appearance of attorney of attorney on behalf of defendant. Dkt. N0. 24. Defendant filed an opposition t0 plaintiffs’ motion 0n February 25, 2021. Dkt. N0. 25. On March 1, 2021, plaintiffs filed a reply. Dkt. N0. 27. On March 3, 2021, the Court held a hearing 0n plaintiffs’ motion. During the hearing, the parties stipulated t0 converting the hearing on plaintiffs’ request for a TRO into a hearing for preliminary injunction. Therefore, the Court determines Whether preliminary injunction is warranted. LEGAL STANDARD The standards for a temporary restraining order are the same as those for a preliminary injunction. See Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Ca, Inc. v. John D. Brush & C0,, Ina, 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). A plaintiff must demonstrate “that he is likely t0 succeed 0n the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence ofpreliminary relief, that the balance 0f equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir.2009) (quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Ina, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). “A preliminary injunction may also be appropriate if a movant raises ‘serious questions going to the merits’ and the ‘balance of hardships tips sharply towards’ it, as long as the second and third Winter factors are satisfied.” Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. VidAngel, Ina, 869 F.3d 848, 856 (9th Cir. 20 1 7) (internal citations omitted). “A district court may issue interim injunctive relief 0n arbitrable claims if interim relief is necessary to preserve the status quo and the meaningfulness of the arbitration process-provided, 0f course, that the requirements for granting injunctive relief are otherwise satisfied.” Toyo Ture Holdings ofAmericaS Inc. v. Continental Tire North America, Ina, 609 F.3d 975, 981 (9th Cir. 2010). injunctive relief on arbitrable claims). DISCUSSION The Court has the authority t0 issue preliminary injunction 0n arbitrable claims to preserve the status quo. See Biochain Institute, Inc. v. Epigenomics AG, 19-CV-2120-JSW, 2019 WL 2451005 2 United States District Court Northern District 0f California KOOONQ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 3:21-cv-00874-Sl Document 30 Filed 03/07/21 Page 3 0f 5 at *4 (ND. Cal. June 12, 2019) (applying standard for injunctive relief on arbitrable claims). For the reasons stated during the March 3, 2021 hearing, the Court finds that plaintiffs have demonstrated sufficient likelihood 0f success 0n the merits, irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, equities favoring relief, and that relief is in the public interest, to justify preliminary relief in order to preserve the status quo. However, as the Court explained to the parties during the hearing, the Court is concerned that plaintiffs’ requested relief is too broad the status quo. Thus, the Court will tailor the scope of relief. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: 1. Defendant Krzysztof Sywula and all persons acting under, 0r in concert with, are restrained, enjoined, and prohibited from deleting, modifying, disseminating, disclosing, or blocking Teleport Mobility/Northern Lights’ access to Teleport Mobility/Northern Lights’ programs, software, codes, files, and internal networks, including email accounts, DocuSign, Salesforce, Dropbox, Lucidchart, Wrike, Linode, Vultr (2), Ramnode, AWS, domains and “G Suite/Google Workspace” productivity software, “BlueKiwi (Version A),” “BlueKiwi (Version B),” “Black Lotus,” “Xelerate,” and “Xelerate Demo” programs. Defendant Krzysztof Sywula is ordered, no later than March 12, 2021, to: (A) Grant Teleport Mobility/Northern Lights equal control 0r administrative authority of Teleport Mobility/Northern Lights’ programs, files, and internal networks, including email accounts, DocuSign, Salesforce, Dropbox, Lucidchart, Wrike, Linode, Vultr (2), Ramnode, AWS, domains and “G Suite/Google Workspace” productivity software, “BlueKiwi (Version A),” “BlueKiwi (Version B),” “Black Lotus,” “Xelerate,” and “Xelerate Demo” programs. ‘ (B) Provide Teleport Mobility/Northem Lights all logins, user IDs, passwords or other information necessary to access Teleport Mobility/Northern Lights’ computers, 3 United States District Court Northern District 0f California KOOONQ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 3:21-cv-00874-Sl Document 30 Filed 03/07/21 Page 4 0f 5 software or hardware, operating system, database, server, software, or other storage location, whether within plaintiffs” or defendant’s possession, sufficient for Teleport Mobility/Northern Lights’ forensic experts t0 identify whether defendant accessed, deleted, modified, or disseminated Teleport Mobility/Northern Lights’ programs, software, codes, files, and internal networks. (C) Identify for Teleport Mobility/Northern Lights any other persons, entities, or locations not within Defendant’s possession, custody, 0r control, t0 which Defendant has transmitted, disseminated, disclosed, 0r stored any 0f Teleport Mobility’s programs, files, and internal networks. (D) File a declaration under penalty of perjury regarding defendant’s access 0f Teleport Mobility’s internal systems, programs, codes, and emails. Defendant must indicate if, on or after January 17, 2021, defendant accessed Teleport Mobility/Northern Lights’ internal systems, codes, software, and emails. If defendant accessed internal systems, codes, software, and emails, defendant must indicate When defendant made access and if defendant modified, copied, 0r deleted any of Teleport Mobility/Northern Lights’ files, information, programs, software, or codes. 3. Defense counsel, Christopher L. Walters, is ordered, no later than March 12, 2021, to report to the Court whether defendant Krzysztof Sywula authorizes defense counsel t0 accept service 0n defendant’s behalf. If defendant denies authorization of service, defense counsel will provide an address for service 0f process. 4. Teleport Mobility and Northern Lights are ordered, n0 later than March 12, 2021, to provide the Court with a list 0f Teleport Mobility and Northern Lights’ investors. United States District Court Northern District 0f California KOOONQ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 3:21-cv-00874-Sl Document 30 Filed 03/07/21 Page 5 0f 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT all parties as well as any persons in active concert or participation With the parties, is hereby ORDERED to preserve all evidence in accordance with applicable federal and state rules, and t0 CEASE, DESIST, AND REFRAIN from deleting, destroying, removing, altering, modifying, concealing, spoliating, or secreting any documents or information relating to this lawsuit in any way, n0 matter Where such information resides, including any documents or information stored on any computer or other media. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 7, 2021 i : j g g SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge