DataSpan Holdings, Inc. v. Marian Choquer

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 15, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02607
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE

7 NO. 2:25-cv-2607-BJR DATASPAN HOLDINGS, INC., 8 ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S Plaintiff, RENEWED MOTION FOR A 9 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING v. ORDER AND MOTION FOR LEAVE 10 TO CONDUCT EXPEDITED MARIAN CHOQUER, DISCOVERY AND FOR A 11 SCHEDULING ORDER ON MOTION Defendant. FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 12

13 I. INTRODUCTION 14 Plaintiff DataSpan Holdings, Inc. (“DataSpan”) brings suit against Defendant Marian 15 Choquer (“Choquer”), a former employee, for allegedly taking and retaining without 16 authorization DataSpan’s confidential information, including trade secrets. Currently before the 17 Court are two motions: (1) Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order 18 (“Renewed TRO Motion”) and (2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Conduct Expedited Discovery 19 and for a Scheduling Order on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction (“Motion for Expedited 20 Discovery”). Dkt. Nos. 10 & 14, respectively. Choquer opposes both motions. Dkt. No. 16. 21 Having reviewed the motions, the opposition and reply thereto, the record of the case, and the 22 relevant legal authority, the Court grants the motion. The reasoning for the Court’s decision 23 follows. 24

ORDER 25 2 DataSpan filed this lawsuit against Choquer on Thursday, December 18, 2025, alleging

3 claims for trade secrets misappropriation under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”), 18 4 U.S.C. § 1836, breach of contract, breach of the duty of loyalty, and unjust enrichment. Dkt. No. 5 1. The next day on Friday, December 19, 2025, after the close of business, DataSpan filed a 6 motion for an ex parte temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and for a preliminary injunction. 7 Dkt. No. 3. This Court denied the motion on Monday, December 22, 2025, noting among other 8 things, that DataSpan had not satisfied the heightened requirement for an ex parte TRO. Dkt. No. 9 7. 10 Thereafter, on December 30, 2025, DataSpan filed an affidavit of service indicating that 11 Choquer had been served with a copy of the summons and complaint on December 22, 2025.

12 Dkt. No. 9. DataSpan then filed the instant Renewed TRO Motion on January 2, 2026 and the 13 Motion for Expedited Discovery on January 6, 2026. Dkt. Nos. 10 & 14, respectively. This Court 14 instructed Choquer to respond to both motions by the end of business on January 9, with 15 DataSpan’s reply thereto due on January 13. Dkt. No. 15. The motions are now ripe and ready 16 for this Court’s review. 17 III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 18 DataSpan offers a variety of data-center-related services, including cleaning, floor 19 replacement and repair, airflow management, and power solutions. To support these services, 20 DataSpan employs account managers who act as the primary point of contact for customers from 21 initial project discussions through service delivery. DataSpan alleges that it grants account

22 managers access to its confidential information, including customer information, pricing, 23 proposals, contracts, and project specifications. To protect this information, DataSpan requires 24

ORDER 25 2 of-property provisions.

3 On August 25, 2022, Defendant Choquer joined DataSpan as an account manager and 4 executed an Employee, Confidential Information, Non-Solicitation, and Non-Compete 5 Agreement (“the Agreement”). DataSpan alleges that by executing the Agreement, Choquer 6 acknowledged that its customer information and marketing strategies constitute confidential 7 information, agreed to return all DataSpan property and confidential information upon request or 8 termination, and agreed not to retain, recreate, or disclose such information. 9 DataSpan claims that in the first half of 2025, a longstanding and important customer 10 retained DataSpan to perform a substantial floor replacement project at a data center. The project 11 was divided into two phases, Phase I and Phase II, and Choquer served as the account manager

12 during Phase I of the project, which DataSpan completed in the summer of 2025. DataSpan 13 anticipated that it would also be awarded Phase II of the project, but after competition of Phase I, 14 DataSpan became concerned that the work on Phase II had been diverted to one of its 15 competitors, Modular Interiors by Cook’s (“MIC”). 16 On November 13, 2025, DataSpan’s Vice President of Operations met with Choquer and 17 questioned her regarding Phase II of the project. At the conclusion of the meeting, DataSpan 18 suspended Choquer effective immediately, collected her work-issued laptop, and instructed her 19 not to perform further work on DataSpan’s behalf. DataSpan alleges that a subsequent forensic 20 examination of the laptop showed that shortly before the meeting, Choquer copied a substantial 21 volume of data from the laptop onto two personal USB storage devices, deleted thousands of

22 files from the laptop, and used a personal cloud storage account to store DataSpan information. 23 The copied data allegedly included extensive confidential information and trade secrets, such as 24

ORDER 25 2 materials. The forensic investigation also recovered two MIC proposals related to Phase II of the

3 project, dated July 1 and October 1, 2025, which Choquer had deleted from the laptop, and 4 which did not appear in her DataSpan email account. DataSpan asserts that these circumstances 5 suggest that Choquer received the proposals through a personal account, saved them locally, and 6 later deleted them. 7 On December 5, 2025, DataSpan’s executives spoke with Choquer regarding the 8 investigation. DataSpan alleges that during that call, Choquer admitted that she worked with 9 MIC on Phase II of the project and declined to answer whether she received compensation in 10 connection with MIC obtaining the work. The call ended abruptly, and DataSpan terminated 11 Choquer’s employment effective immediately. That same day, DataSpan’s counsel demanded

12 that Choquer return all DataSpan property and comply with her confidentiality obligations. 13 Choquer did not respond. 14 DataSpan alleges that Choquer remains in possession of voluminous DataSpan 15 documents, including confidential customer proposals and pricing information, inspection 16 reports and assessments, historical project files, and materials expressly designated as 17 confidential by DataSpan and third parties. DataSpan further alleges that disclosure or misuse of 18 this information would undermine its competitive position, damage its relationships with 19 customers and vendors, and create a substantial risk of diverting ongoing and future business 20 opportunities. 21 IV. REQUESTED RELIEF

22 DataSpan requests that this Court “enjoin[], restrain[], and order[] Choquer, and anyone 23 acting in concert [] with her,” as follows: 24

ORDER 25 information belonging to or originating from DataSpan (“DataSpan Information”), 2 including but not limited to any DataSpan Information copied to the USB Devices on November 13, 2025; 3 ii. Within seventy-two (72) hours of entry of the TRO, Choquer shall identify, 4 surrender, and provide access to any devices (e.g., computers, phones external storage devices, etc., including but not limited to the USB Devices) and accounts 5 (e.g., email accounts, cloud storage accounts, etc.) to which Choquer has saved, sent, stored, or transmitted any DataSpan Information since July 1, 2025, to 6 DataSpan’s third-party forensic consultant and shall cooperate to provide access to the same for investigation and remediation of any DataSpan Information residing 7 on or in such locations;

8 iii. Within seventy-two (72) hours of entry of the TRO, Choquer shall provide counsel for DataSpan a sworn accounting of all disclosures, copying, transfers, or 9 other transmittals of any DataSpan Information that she has made to any third-party or location since November 13, 2025; 10 iv. Choquer shall not delete, alter, destroy, or otherwise spoliate any documents 11 or electronically stored information containing, consisting of, or related to DataSpan Information; and 12 v. All other relief the Court deems appropriate. 13 Dkt. No. 10 at 1-2. DataSpan also requests that following entry of the TRO, this Court allow the 14 parties to proceed with expedited discovery, including limited written discovery and depositions, 15 and setting a briefing schedule for the motion for preliminary injunction after the issuance of the 16 TRO. Dkt. No. 14 at 5-6. 17 V. LEGAL STANDARD 18 The standard for issuing a TRO is “substantially identical” to the standard for issuing a 19 preliminary injunction. See Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 20 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). Thus, to obtain a TRO, a plaintiff must show: (1) likelihood of success on the 21 merits; (2) likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance 22 of equities tips in their favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. See Winter v. 23 Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 24

ORDER 25 2 issue an injunction if “the likelihood of success is such that serious questions going to the merits

3 were raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in [plaintiff’s] favor,” assuming the moving 4 party also establishes the other two Winter factors. All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 5 1127, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Nevertheless, the moving 6 party must show “at an irreducible minimum” that there is “a fair chance of success on the 7 merits, or questions serious enough to require litigation.” Pimentel v. Dreyfus, 670 F.3d 1096, 8 1111 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Moreover, “[a]n injunction is a matter of equitable 9 discretion and is an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that 10 the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Earth Island Inst. v. Carlton, 626 F.3d 462, 469 (9th Cir. 11 2010) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

12 VI. DISCUSSION 13 A. Motion for TRO 14 1. Likelihood of Success on the Merits 15 DataSpan asserts likelihood of success on the merits of its DTSA claim. The DTSA 16 creates a private cause of action in federal court for trade secret misappropriation. See 18 U.S.C. 17 § 1836(b)(1). The trade secret must be “related to a product or service used in, or intended for 18 use in, interstate or foreign commerce.” 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(1). The DTSA is violated if, among 19 other things, someone “with intent to convert a trade secret” “to the economic benefit of anyone 20 other than the owner thereof, and intending or knowing that the offense will, injure any owner of 21 that trade secret, knowingly” “without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws,

22 photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits, delivers, 23 sends, mails, communicates, or conveys such information[.]” 18 U.S.C.A. § 1832(a)(2). 24

ORDER 25 2 person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means.”

3 RCW 19.108.010(2). Improper means “includes theft.” RCW 19.108.010(1). 4 Here, DataSpan has provided declarations in support of its request for a TRO that 5 substantiate its claim that Choquer accessed, downloaded to personal USB devices, and saved 6 confidential information that likely includes trade secrets for the purpose of using the 7 information to her own ends and in a manner that would be harmful to DataSpan’s business. 8 DataSpan has presented testimony that suggests that the downloaded information includes 9 customer proposals and pricing details for current and future projects, contracts, historical client 10 information, inspection reports, and documents designated as confidential by not only DataSpan 11 but its customers. See, e.g., Zaidins Dec., Ex. 10-2 at ¶¶ 25-29, 45; Vaughn Dec., Ex. 10-4.

12 Clearly this type of information constitutes confidential trade secrets. “Customer information 13 such as sales history and customer needs and preferences constitute trade secrets.” Henry Schein, 14 Inc. v. Cook, 191 F. Supp. 3d 1072, 1077 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (citing MAI Sys. Corp., v. Peak 15 Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 521 (9th Cir. 1993)). The fact that Choquer downloaded the 16 information onto private USB devices immediately before her meeting with her supervisors is 17 strong circumstantial evidence that she knew she was about to be terminated and wanted to 18 obtain the information before she lost access to it. Likewise, the fact that a proposal from MIC, 19 DataSpan’s competitor for Phase II of the project, was found on Choquer’s laptop and that MIC 20 was later awarded the Phase II project, lends further credence that Choquer was working with 21 MIC.

22 Choquer does not deny that she downloaded the confidential information; rather, she 23 claims that she plans to “utilize[]” the information to “support [her] filings to the Washington 24

ORDER 25 2 not save her. First, legal precedent is clear that an employee cannot steal employer property on

3 the way out the door in order to engage in “litigation self-help.” See, e.g., O’Day v. McDonnell 4 Douglas Helicopter Co., 79 F.3d 756, 763-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[W]e are loathe to provide 5 employees an incentive to rifle through confidential files looking for evidence that might come in 6 handy in later litigation”). Second, if DataSpan’s allegations are proven true, Choquer has 7 already demonstrated a willingness to use DataSpan’s confidential information (including 8 proposals for active and future projects) to assist its competitors. 9 The Court concludes that DataSpan is also likely to succeed on the merits of its breach of 10 contract claim. Choquer’s employment agreement requires her to immediately return all of 11 DataSpan’s confidential information in her possession upon request and/or termination—a fact

12 that Choquer does not dispute. DataSpan has both terminated Choquer and repeatedly demanded 13 return of its confidential information, yet Choquer has failed to return the requested 14 information—again, facts that she does not dispute. Thus, DataSpan has established that its likely 15 to prevail on its breach of contract claim. 16 2. Likelihood of Irreparable Harm in the Absence of Injunctive Relief 17 DataSpan alleges that it has already suffered irreparable harm and will continue to do so 18 as long as Choquer remains in possession of its confidential information. Choquer counters that 19 DataSpan’s alleged irreparable harm is “speculative” and “economic” and therefore it has not 20 met its burden of establishing that it faces a likelihood of irreparable harm. This Court disagrees 21 with Choquer. First, DataSpan asserts that the stolen confidential information appears to relate to

22 future projects and active proposals, thus the risk of potential competitive misuse by Choquer is 23 especially high. And second, DataSpan alleges more than just the potential loss of future 24

ORDER 25 2 that cannot be easily quantified and compensated with money damages. “‘[E]vidence of

3 threatened loss of prospective customers or goodwill certainly supports a finding of the 4 possibility of irreparable harm.’” Henry Schein, Inc., 191 F. Supp. 3d at 1077 (quoting Stuhlbarg 5 Int'l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 841 (9th Cir. 2001)). Therefore, the Court 6 concludes that DataSpan has established the likelihood of irreparable harm absent injunctive 7 relief. 8 3. The Balance of Equities Tips in DataSpan’s Favor 9 DataSpan argues that the balance of equities tips in its favor because Choquer “has no 10 legal right to the documents she stole” and requiring “her to return them will cause her no harm.” 11 Choquer counters that her right to privacy will be invaded if she is required to submit her devices

12 to a forensic consultant. The Court agrees with DataSpan that the equities tip in its favor. No 13 harm will come to Choquer by preventing her from using misappropriated confidential material 14 and prohibiting her from destroying any evidence of such. Any privacy concerns can be properly 15 mitigated through the use of a mutually agreed upon, independent, third-party computer forensics 16 expert. See Redapt Inc. v. Parker, 2020 WL 3128859, *5 (W.D. Wash. June 11, 2020). 17 4. Public Interest 18 DataSpan argues that preventing theft of trade secrets is in the public interest. This Court 19 agrees: “the public interest is served when defendant is asked to do no more than abide by trade 20 laws and the obligations of contractual agreements signed with her employer. Public interest is 21 also served by enabling the protection of trade secrets.” Redapt Inc. v. Parker, 2020 WL

22 3128859, *6 (W.D. Wash. June 11, 2020) (quoting Henry Schein, Inc., 191 F. Supp. 3d at 1078). 23 24

ORDER 25 2 Generally, courts may grant a TRO “only if the movant gives security in an amount that

3 the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have 4 been wrongfully ... restrained.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c). “A district court ‘may dispense with the 5 filing of a bond when it concludes there is no realistic likelihood of harm to the defendant from 6 enjoining his or her conduct.’” Redapt Inc. v. Parker, 2020 WL 3128859, *6 (W.D. Wash. June 7 11, 2020) (quoting Navigant Consulting, Inc. v. Milliman, Inc., 2018 WL 3751983, *4 (W.D. 8 Wash. Aug. 8, 2018). The Court finds that the risk of harm to Choquer is minimal; she is simply 9 being ordered to not disseminate or destroy information that she allegedly misappropriated. 10 Nevertheless, the Court will order DataSpan to post a security bond of $1,000 to be released 11 following the return of Choquer’s devices after the forensic evaluation.

12 B. Motion for Expediated Discovery 13 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, courts have the authority to order expedited 14 discovery that takes place before the parties have conferred regarding the scope of discovery. 15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). A party seeking expedited discovery must show “good cause” to depart 16 from the usual discovery process. Byrd v. Barbieri, 2025 WL 3211801, * 5 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 17 2025) (citing Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D. Cal. 2002). 18 In evaluating whether good cause has been shown, courts consider several factors, including: (1) 19 whether a preliminary injunction is pending; (2) the breadth of the discovery requests; (3) the 20 purpose for requesting expedited discovery; (4) the burden on defendants to comply with the 21 request; and (5) how far in advance of the typical discovery process the request is made. Id.

22 Here, DataSpan requests that each party be allowed to serve five interrogatories and five 23 requests for production on the opposing party, serve non-party subpoenas, and conduct two 24

ORDER 25 2 discovery be served within two business days of the date of this order and the responses served

3 within ten days of the date served. It further requests that the depositions occur within seven days 4 of the discovery responses. The Court finds that DataSpan has demonstrated good cause for 5 expedited discovery and that the requested discovery is reasonable. Therefore, Court will grant 6 the request. 7 VII. CONCLUSION 8 For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY GRANTS DataSpan’s Renewed TRO 9 Motion [Dkt. No. 10]. Choquer and anyone working in concert with her is enjoined, restrained, 10 and ordered as follows: 11 i. Choquer shall not use or disclose any confidential or proprietary information belonging to or originating from DataSpan (“DataSpan Information”), 12 including but not limited to any DataSpan Information copied to the USB Devices on November 13, 2025; 13 ii. Within seventy-two (72) hours of entry of the TRO, Choquer shall identify, 14 surrender, and provide access to any devices (e.g., computers, phones external storage devices, etc., including but not limited to the USB Devices) and accounts 15 (e.g., email accounts, cloud storage accounts, etc.) to which Choquer has saved, sent, stored, or transmitted any DataSpan Information since July 1, 2025, to a 16 mutually agreed upon third-party forensic consultant and shall cooperate to provide access to the same for investigation and remediation of any DataSpan Information 17 residing on or in such locations;

18 iii. Within seventy-two (72) hours of entry of the TRO, Choquer shall provide counsel for DataSpan a sworn accounting of all disclosures, copying, transfers, or 19 other transmittals of any DataSpan Information that she has made to any third-party or location since November 13, 2025; and 20 iv. Choquer shall not delete, alter, destroy, or otherwise spoliate any documents 21 or electronically stored information containing, consisting of, or related to DataSpan Information. 22 In addition, DataSpan’s request for expediated discovery is granted [Dkt. No. 14]. 23 Each party may serve up to five interrogatories and five requests for production on the 24

ORDER 25 2 depositions per side, limited to three hours each. The written discovery shall be served

3 within two business days of the date of this order and the responses thereto served within 4 ten days of the date served. The depositions shall occur within seven days of the 5 discovery responses. 6 Lastly, the parties shall submit briefing on DataSpan’s request to convert the TRO 7 into a preliminary injunction. DataSpan shall file a revised motion requesting a 8 preliminary injunction on or before Thursday, February 12, 2026, Choquer’s response 9 shall be filed on or before Thursday February 19, 2026, and the reply shall be filed on or 10 before Wednesday, February 25, 2026. The page limitations shall comply with those set 11 forth in this Court’s Standing Order [Dkt. No. 8].

12 The TRO will remain in effect until the resolution of the foregoing motion for a 13 preliminary injunction.1 14 Dated this 15th day of January 2026. 15 A 16 Barbara Jacobs Rothstein U.S. District Court Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 1While TROs typically expire after fourteen days, the Court may extend them for good cause. Based on the record before it and the discovery and motion schedules outlined above, the Court presumptively extends the expiration 24 deadline. Choquer may move for relief if she believes such relief is necessary.

ORDER 25