Teledyne Technologies Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation, doing business as Teledyne Electronic Manufacturing Services, Plaintiff-Appellee,
Raj Shekar, Defendant-Appellant.
May 23, 2016
from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 15 C 1392 -
Ronald A. Guzman, Judge.
BAUER, POSNER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Technologies, Inc. ("Tele-dyne") obtained a
temporary restraining order and, later, a preliminary
injunction against its former employee, Raj Shekar
("Shekar"). Both required Shekar to return
Teledyne's equipment and electronic information, which he
retained following his termination. Since Shekar refused to
comply with either order, Teledyne filed a motion for rule to
show cause why Shekar should not be held in contempt. The
district court granted the motion and scheduled an
evidentiary hearing. Prior to the hearing, Shekar filed a
motion to vacate the preliminary injunction.
the district court issued an order holding Shekar in contempt
and denying his motion to vacate the preliminary injunction.
Shekar appeals both rulings.
February 3, 2015, Teledyne terminated Shekar's
employment. On February 13, 2015, Teledyne filed a verified
complaint for injunctive relief against Shekar in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
to the verified complaint, as a Teledyne employee, Shekar had
access to Teledyne's servers, which contained the
company's confidential information. After Teledyne fired
Shekar, Shekar "accessed or attempted to access"
Teledyne's servers. There was also "a large data
transfer between Teledyne EMS's server 20 and
Shekar's laptop computer" on the day he was
terminated. Further, in the months prior to his termination,
Shekar emailed Teledyne's confidential information to his
personal email addresses and saved it on his computer's
addition, Teledyne's verified complaint states that
Shekar had worked from home and used equipment provided by
Teledyne. This included a "laptop computer, a VPN token,
a projector, and a printer/scanner." After his
termination, Shekar refused to return any of the equipment.
verified complaint names several causes of action against
Shekar, such as violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse
Act, the Illinois Trade Secrets Act, and the Illinois Uniform
Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Teledyne sought injunctive relief
that would require Shekar to return all of Teledyne's
electronic information and equipment, as well as produce his
personal computers and electronic storage devices to be
inspected for Teledyne's confidential information.
Teledyne also sought damages and other relief.
February 17, 2015, the district court issued a temporary
restraining order requiring Shekar to return all of
Teledyne's electronic information and equipment. It also
ordered him to identify in verified interrogatory responses
all devices he owned that were capable of storing electronic
information. Further, Shekar had to submit a declaration
certifying that he had returned all of Teledyne's
property, and that he had retained all relevant devices and
electronic information without any alterations.
March 5, 2015, Teledyne filed an amended motion for a
preliminary injunction. On March 10, 2015, the district court
held a hearing on the motion, which Shekar did not attend
(although the district court found that he had notice). The
district court granted Teledyne's motion for the
preliminary injunction, noting that Shekar had "failed
to comply with any aspect of the [temporary restraining
order]." Most of the preliminary injunction's
directives mirrored the earlier temporary restraining order.
But the preliminary injunction also required Shekar to
provide Teledyne with "unrestricted access" to all
of his devices that were capable of storing electronic
March 17, 2015, Teledyne filed a motion for rule to show
cause why the court should not hold Shekar in contempt for
violating the temporary restraining order and the preliminary
injunction. Teledyne argued that Shekar had refused to comply
with the preliminary injunction's provisions. The
district court granted the motion and scheduled a hearing for
April 30, 2015.
April 27, 2015, Shekar filed a motion to vacate the
preliminary injunction. He claimed that he did not receive
notice of either the temporary restraining order or the
preliminary injunction until after the orders were entered.
Shekar also stated that his lawyer had turned over all of
Teledyne's equipment that ...