Preview
FILED
5/3/2021 11:16 AM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Margaret Thomas DEPUTY
CAUSE NO. DC-21-03702
CENTURY INTERACTIVE COMPANY, §
LC d/b/a CALL BOX, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
REID WAKEFIELD and TONE §
SYSTEMS, LLC, §
§
Defendants. § 192ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION,
RECONSIDERATION. AND/OR TO DISSOLVE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
COME NOW Defendants Reid Wakefield (“Wakefield”) and Tone Systems, LLC
(“Tone”) (collectively hereinafter referred to as “Defendants”) and hereby file their Reply to
’
Plaintiff’s Response t0 Defendants Motion for Reconsideration, Clarification and/0r To Dissolve
Temporary Injunction and would show this Court as follows:
Plaintiff has been incredibly adept at muddying the waters with respect to the matters
before this Court at this stage of the litigation. Thus, the need for clarification and reconsideration.
Plaintiff’s response states that the “entire case. . .has been focused on one particular line of
business: the phone system line of business.” See Plaintiff’s Response at Page 2. Notably, in
Plaintiffs Original Petition, Plaintiff alleged it had “spent substantial time, resources, and
effort...in developing a new telephone system service product,” a product which allegedly
included “a cloud-based telephone system option, as well as a combined software and hardware
telephone system option.” See Plaintiffs Original Petition at Page 5. Plaintiff then repeatedly
refers throughout its Original Petition to a phone system it was or is in the process of developing.
Importantly, Plaintiff references trade secrets that “include the business plans and technical
information concerning” its “software product that attaches to the existing phone system of a
DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR
CLARIFICATION, RECONSIDERATION AND TO DISSOLVE PAGE 1 OF 4
business” and the purported phone system product referenced above. See Plaintiff s Original
Petition at Pages 5 and 7.
The evidence at the Temporary Injunction hearing clearly established that any technical
information and development, including development of “the mechanism to integrate the various
components” of Plaintiff’ s software application into another company’s phone system as alleged
in Plaintiffs Response, was related to Plaintiff s Call Box software application. . .not any phone
system. Plaintiff identified zero trade secrets related to the sale of other companies’ phone
systems. While Plaintiff outlines in its Response that the purported “phone system business is not
a minor side project,” it is hard to see it as anything but minor considering the percentage of
Plaintiff’s monthly revenue garnered from its referral efforts.
Although Plaintiff has muddied the waters, the following is quite clear and establishes that
a Temporary Injunction is improper in this case:
l. Plaintiff presented no evidence of any specific trade secrets that Defendants
misappropriated. Despite providing 500 pages of evidence in its Response (which
it also provided at the Temporary Injunction hearing), Plaintiff still has not pointed
to any such trade secrets. In its Response, Plaintiff referenced testimony regarding
“business plans and marketing strategies.” Yet, Plaintiff has not provided any such
plans or strategies, nor has Plaintiff provided any evidence that Defendants took,
have, or utilized such business plans and marketing strategies. Such evidence is
required to establish a probable right to relief as to Plaintiff’ s cause of action for
violation of the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act. As such, Plaintiff has no
probable right to relief.
DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR
CLARIFICATION, RECONSIDERATION AND TO DISSOLVE PAGE 2 OF 4
2. Plaintiff’ s entire case that Defendants utilized Plaintiff’ s trade secrets relies on
testimony from Jack Doege that a comparison of two aspirational dashboards are
so similar that Defendants must have utilized trade secrets. Yet, Plaintiff provided
no evidence to support that assertion. In fact, the evidence at the hearing
established that Defendant Wakefield used a third party in another country to
develop Defendant Tone Systems’ dashboard. Notably, Plaintiff asserts in its
response that its “dashboard represents a synthesis or compilation of years of
confidential research and development,” yet Plaintiff provided no evidence to
support such an assertion and no evidence was ever presented to support such an
assertion.
3. Plaintiff has presented no evidence of any irreparable harm and the Amended
Temporary Injunction does not outline any. Despite Plaintiff s effort at further
muddying the water surrounding Mejerle v. Brookhollow Ojfice Products, Ina, 666
S.W.2d 192 (Tex. App. — Dallas 1983, no writ), that case and other relevant case
law clearly stand for the proposition that imminent irreparable harm must be
identified and a simple recitation of such is not enough. Plaintiff not only has been
unable to identify any irreparable harm, but Plaintiff actually alleged increases in
business since Defendant Wakefield’s employment ended. This is the opposite of
irreparable harm.
Based on the foregoing arguments, Defendants seek the relief as outlined in their original
Motion for Clarification, Reconsideration and To Dissolve.
Respectfully submitted,
SIMON |
PASCHAL PLLC
5300 Town and Country Blvd., Suite 155
DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR
CLARIFICATION, RECONSIDERATION AND TO DISSOLVE PAGE 3 OF 4
Frisco, Texas 75034
(972) 893-9340 (Telephone)
(972) 893-9350 (Facsimile)
/s/ Dustin A. Paschal
By:
Dustin A. Paschal
State Bar No. 24051 160
dustin@sim0npaschal. com
Paul W. Simon
State Bar No. 24060611
paul@sim0npaschal. com
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDAN TS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 3rd day of May 2021, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was
served upon Plaintiff’ s counsel of record Via e-service
/s/ Dustin A. Paschal
DUSTIN A. PASCHAL
DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR
CLARIFICATION, RECONSIDERATION AND TO DISSOLVE PAGE 4 OF 4
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Paul Simon on behalf of Paul Simon
Bar No. 24060611
paul@simonpaschal.com
Envelope ID: 53038911
Status as of 5/3/2021 3:36 PM CST
Associated Case Party: CENTURY INTERACTIVE COMPANY, LC
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Sherry Faulkner sherry.faulkner@dlapiper.com 5/3/2021 11:16:32 AM SENT
Michael W.Massiatte michael.massiatte@dlapiper.com 5/3/2021 11:16:32 AM SENT
Mike Moore mike.moore@dlapiper.com 5/3/2021 11:16:32 AM SENT
Marina Stefanova marina.stefanova@dlapiper.com 5/3/2021 11:16:32 AM SENT
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Matthew Nickel matt.nickel@dlapiper.com 5/3/2021 11:16:32 AM SENT
Dustin Paschal dustin@simonpaschal.com 5/3/2021 11:16:32 AM SENT
Paul Simon Paul@simonpaschal.com 5/3/2021 11:16:32 AM SENT
Preview
FILED 5/3/2021 11:16 AM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Margaret Thomas DEPUTY CAUSE NO. DC-21-03702 CENTURY INTERACTIVE COMPANY, § LC d/b/a CALL BOX, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § Plaintiff, § § v. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS § REID WAKEFIELD and TONE § SYSTEMS, LLC, § § Defendants. § 192ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION, RECONSIDERATION. AND/OR TO DISSOLVE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION COME NOW Defendants Reid Wakefield (“Wakefield”) and Tone Systems, LLC (“Tone”) (collectively hereinafter referred to as “Defendants”) and hereby file their Reply to ’ Plaintiff’s Response t0 Defendants Motion for Reconsideration, Clarification and/0r To Dissolve Temporary Injunction and would show this Court as follows: Plaintiff has been incredibly adept at muddying the waters with respect to the matters before this Court at this stage of the litigation. Thus, the need for clarification and reconsideration. Plaintiff’s response states that the “entire case. . .has been focused on one particular line of business: the phone system line of business.” See Plaintiff’s Response at Page 2. Notably, in Plaintiffs Original Petition, Plaintiff alleged it had “spent substantial time, resources, and effort...in developing a new telephone system service product,” a product which allegedly included “a cloud-based telephone system option, as well as a combined software and hardware telephone system option.” See Plaintiffs Original Petition at Page 5. Plaintiff then repeatedly refers throughout its Original Petition to a phone system it was or is in the process of developing. Importantly, Plaintiff references trade secrets that “include the business plans and technical information concerning” its “software product that attaches to the existing phone system of a DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION, RECONSIDERATION AND TO DISSOLVE PAGE 1 OF 4 business” and the purported phone system product referenced above. See Plaintiff s Original Petition at Pages 5 and 7. The evidence at the Temporary Injunction hearing clearly established that any technical information and development, including development of “the mechanism to integrate the various components” of Plaintiff’ s software application into another company’s phone system as alleged in Plaintiffs Response, was related to Plaintiff s Call Box software application. . .not any phone system. Plaintiff identified zero trade secrets related to the sale of other companies’ phone systems. While Plaintiff outlines in its Response that the purported “phone system business is not a minor side project,” it is hard to see it as anything but minor considering the percentage of Plaintiff’s monthly revenue garnered from its referral efforts. Although Plaintiff has muddied the waters, the following is quite clear and establishes that a Temporary Injunction is improper in this case: l. Plaintiff presented no evidence of any specific trade secrets that Defendants misappropriated. Despite providing 500 pages of evidence in its Response (which it also provided at the Temporary Injunction hearing), Plaintiff still has not pointed to any such trade secrets. In its Response, Plaintiff referenced testimony regarding “business plans and marketing strategies.” Yet, Plaintiff has not provided any such plans or strategies, nor has Plaintiff provided any evidence that Defendants took, have, or utilized such business plans and marketing strategies. Such evidence is required to establish a probable right to relief as to Plaintiff’ s cause of action for violation of the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act. As such, Plaintiff has no probable right to relief. DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION, RECONSIDERATION AND TO DISSOLVE PAGE 2 OF 4 2. Plaintiff’ s entire case that Defendants utilized Plaintiff’ s trade secrets relies on testimony from Jack Doege that a comparison of two aspirational dashboards are so similar that Defendants must have utilized trade secrets. Yet, Plaintiff provided no evidence to support that assertion. In fact, the evidence at the hearing established that Defendant Wakefield used a third party in another country to develop Defendant Tone Systems’ dashboard. Notably, Plaintiff asserts in its response that its “dashboard represents a synthesis or compilation of years of confidential research and development,” yet Plaintiff provided no evidence to support such an assertion and no evidence was ever presented to support such an assertion. 3. Plaintiff has presented no evidence of any irreparable harm and the Amended Temporary Injunction does not outline any. Despite Plaintiff s effort at further muddying the water surrounding Mejerle v. Brookhollow Ojfice Products, Ina, 666 S.W.2d 192 (Tex. App. — Dallas 1983, no writ), that case and other relevant case law clearly stand for the proposition that imminent irreparable harm must be identified and a simple recitation of such is not enough. Plaintiff not only has been unable to identify any irreparable harm, but Plaintiff actually alleged increases in business since Defendant Wakefield’s employment ended. This is the opposite of irreparable harm. Based on the foregoing arguments, Defendants seek the relief as outlined in their original Motion for Clarification, Reconsideration and To Dissolve. Respectfully submitted, SIMON | PASCHAL PLLC 5300 Town and Country Blvd., Suite 155 DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION, RECONSIDERATION AND TO DISSOLVE PAGE 3 OF 4 Frisco, Texas 75034 (972) 893-9340 (Telephone) (972) 893-9350 (Facsimile) /s/ Dustin A. Paschal By: Dustin A. Paschal State Bar No. 24051 160 dustin@sim0npaschal. com Paul W. Simon State Bar No. 24060611 paul@sim0npaschal. com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDAN TS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 3rd day of May 2021, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served upon Plaintiff’ s counsel of record Via e-service /s/ Dustin A. Paschal DUSTIN A. PASCHAL DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION, RECONSIDERATION AND TO DISSOLVE PAGE 4 OF 4 Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. Paul Simon on behalf of Paul Simon Bar No. 24060611 paul@simonpaschal.com Envelope ID: 53038911 Status as of 5/3/2021 3:36 PM CST Associated Case Party: CENTURY INTERACTIVE COMPANY, LC Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Sherry Faulkner sherry.faulkner@dlapiper.com 5/3/2021 11:16:32 AM SENT Michael W.Massiatte michael.massiatte@dlapiper.com 5/3/2021 11:16:32 AM SENT Mike Moore mike.moore@dlapiper.com 5/3/2021 11:16:32 AM SENT Marina Stefanova marina.stefanova@dlapiper.com 5/3/2021 11:16:32 AM SENT Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Matthew Nickel matt.nickel@dlapiper.com 5/3/2021 11:16:32 AM SENT Dustin Paschal dustin@simonpaschal.com 5/3/2021 11:16:32 AM SENT Paul Simon Paul@simonpaschal.com 5/3/2021 11:16:32 AM SENT