United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Austin Division
PITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Plaintiff Insight Direct USA, Inc.'s
(“Plaintiff”) Motion for a Temporary Restraining
Order. (Dkt. 3). After considering the parties' arguments
and the relevant law, the Court finds that Plaintiff's
Motion should be GRANTED.
suit involves an alleged breach of a non-compete covenant.
Defendant Christopher Kelleher (“Defendant”)
accepted an offer of employment with Plaintiff in February
2014. (Compl. ¶ 18). At that time, he entered into a
Confidentiality, Intellectual Property, Non-Solicitation, and
Non-Competition Agreement (“Non-Compete
Agreement”) with Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 24).
That agreement prohibits Defendant, who was employed by
Plaintiff as a director, from engaging in “competing
business” in the “restricted territory” for
a period of nine months. (Non-Compete Agreement, Dkt. 1-3, at
Defendant also twice entered into a Restricted Stock Unit
Agreement (“RSU Agreement”) with Plaintiff, which
contained a similar non-compete covenant. (Id.
employed by Plaintiff, Defendant oversaw Plaintiff's
channel-partner sales relationship with Dell, EMC
Corporation, and VMware. (Id. ¶¶ 34-35).
Defendant notified Plaintiff that he was leaving to join
VMWare on February 28, 2017; his last day with Plaintiff was
March 7, 2017. (Id. ¶¶ 52-53). At VMware,
Defendant is responsible for “building, coaching, and
developing VMWare's inside sales teams in the
Americas.” (Resp., Dkt. 12, at 2).
seeks a temporary restraining order enjoining Defendant
“and all other persons or entities in active concert or
participation with [Defendant] who receive notice of the
Temporary Restraining Order by personal service or
a) Rendering services for any person or organization, or
engaging directly or indirectly in any business, that is
competitive with Plaintiff;
b) Disclosing to anyone outside Plaintiff or using, without
prior written authorization from Plaintiff, any trade secrets
or other confidential or proprietary information acquired by
Defendant during his employment with Plaintiff;
c) Soliciting, interfering, inducing, or attempting to cause
any employee of Plaintiff to leave his or her
d) Soliciting, interfering, inducing, or attempting to cause
any client of Plaintiff to terminate or reduce its business
relationship with Plaintiff.
(App. TRO, Dkt. 3, at 11).
Court held a hearing on Plaintiff's Application for a
Temporary Restraining Order on March 31, 2017. (See