seal

Court Case Record DR DECISION RESOURCES LLC vs. CHERYL H. BALL & another 2011-J-0342 UID(f93d)


DR DECISION RESOURCES LLC vs. CHERYL H. BALL & another Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2011-J-0342


 
Case Number2011-J-0342
Case TitleDR DECISION RESOURCES LLC vs. CHERYL H. BALL & another
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CountyMiddlesex
CourtMiddlesex Superior Court
Court Address
Phone
Field Date08/04/2011
Close Date08/11/2011

Parties

CounselNameType
Mark M. Whitney, EsquireDR Decision Resources LLCPlaintiff/Petitioner
Michael a. Zeytoonian, EsquireCheryl H. BallDefendant/Respondent
Lee Stephen MacPhee, EsquireRobert M. StolperDefendant/Respondent
DOCKET ENTRIES
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
08/04/2011 #1 Petition pursuant to M.G.L. c. 231, § 118 with attachments, filed by DR Decision Resources LLC.
08/10/2011 #2 Opposition to Petition with attachments, filed by Robert M. Stolper.
08/11/2011 #3 ORDER: The plaintiff seeks interlocutory relief pursuant to G.L. c. 231, § 118, first par., from a Superior Court order partially denying the plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The plaintiff essentially argues that the defendants are not trustworthy and that in order to protect confidential information an injunction is necessary that either enjoins the defendants from violating a noncompetition agreement that would, plaintiff asserts, prevent them from maintaining employment at what plaintiff characterizes as a competitor, or, in the alternative, enjoins the defendants from performing any of the same consulting services they performed when employed by the plaintiff. The motion judge denied this relief, but did grant a "preliminary restraining order" prohibiting the defendants from, inter alia, violating certain nonsolicitation and nondisclosure provisions and from using certain proprietary or confidential information. In light of the scope of the relief ordered by the motion judge, I cannot conclude that it was an abuse of the judge's discretion to deny the additional relief sought by the plaintiff. See Jet-Line Services, Inc. v. Board of Selectmen of Stoughton, 25 Mass. App. Ct. 645, 646 (1988). The petition therefore is denied. (Rubin, J.). Notice/attest/Connolly, J.
08/11/2011 #4 Opposition to Petition with attachments, filed by Cheryl H. Ball.