B&P Littleford, LLC v. Prescott Machine, LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
B&P LITTLEFORD, LLC,
Plaintiff, 	Case No. 1:25-cv-13348
v. 	Honorable Thomas L. Ludington
United States District Judge
PRESCOTT MACHINE, LLC, and
RAY MILLER,
Defendants.
_______________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Plaintiff B&P Littleford designs and builds industrial equipment and produces technical
drawings of the product designs to, among other things, preserve and protect their work product.
It protects these technical drawings by copyright and its use of nondisclosure agreements. Its
former president, Defendant Ray Miller, was terminated in 2008 and later formed Defendant
Prescott Machine, LLC (“Prescott”), leading to two rounds of litigation in this Court concerning
Defendant Prescott’s alleged misuse of Plaintiff’s proprietary drawings and derivative drawings.
Those cases were resolved by settlement in 2022.
Plaintiff now claims that Defendants continue to use drawings substantially similar to—
and derived from—some of Plaintiff’s copyrighted drawings. As a result, Plaintiff sued Defendant
a third time, filing a new Complaint on October 22, 2025. Plaintiff then moved for an ex parte
temporary restraining order (TRO), in part to prevent Defendants from using the drawings to
unfairly compete against Plaintiff. But, as explained below, Plaintiff has not satisfied the
procedural prerequisites for an ex parte TRO. Thus, its Motion for a TRO will be denied.
Case 1:25-cv-13348-TLL-PTM ECF No. 23, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/31/25 Page 1 of 8

- 2 -
I.
A. Prior Litigation
For over one hundred years, ECF No. 1 at PageID.8–9, n.6, Plaintiff B&P Littleford, LLC,
and its predecessors have “design[ed] and buil[t] industrial equipment,” including “vertical
planetary batch mixer[s]” used for “solid rocket fuel,” B&P Littleford, LLC v. Prescott Mach.,
LLC, No. 20-1449, 2021 WL 3732313, at *1, *3 (6th Cir. Aug. 24, 2021). Plaintiff routinely
“maintains drawings of individual parts as well as assembly drawings that show how the parts are
put together.” Id. at *1. It also “imposes strict nondisclosure requirements,” id., and further
safeguards many of these drawings with copyrights, see ECF No. 1 at PageID.10.
Defendant Ray Miller served as Plaintiff’s “president and CEO from 1995 to 2008, when
he 	was 	fired” 	for 	“suspicions 	of 	misconduct”—including 	“self-dealing 	and 	destroying
documents.” B&P Littleford, LLC, 2021 WL 3732313, at *1. After Plaintiff fired Defendant Miller,
he created his own company, Defendant Prescott Machine, LLC (“Prescott”), to service and repair
industrial equipment. Id. at *2. Ultimately, that led to two rounds of litigation concerning Plaintiff’s
technical part drawings. See B&P Littleford, LLC v. Prescott Mach., LLC, No. 1:20-CV-13025,
2022 WL 625069, at *1–3 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 3, 2022).
The first round of litigation began in 2018. See B&P Littleford, LLC, 2021 WL 3732313,
at *4. In that case, Plaintiff sued Defendants for misappropriating Plaintiff’s trade secrets to secure
a contract to rebuild an industrial mixer for the United States Navy that Plaintiff initially installed.
Id. at *3–4. To that end, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant used 27 of Plaintiff’s protected part
drawings to fulfill the secured contract that Defendant Miller had obtained. Id. at *3.
The second round of litigation began in 2020. B&P Littleford, LLC, 2022 WL 625069, at
*1. The second case involved similar alleged conduct—Defendants using Plaintiff’s part drawings
to create unauthorized reproductions or derivative drawings. Id. But this time, Plaintiff brought
Case 1:25-cv-13348-TLL-PTM ECF No. 23, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/31/25 Page 2 of 8

- 3 -
copyright infringement claims under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C.
§§ 1201 et seq., and Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq., which survived a motion to dismiss.
Id. at *2–3.
In the end, in 2022, the Parties settled both cases. See ECF No. 2-2 (sealed). The Settlement
Agreement required Defendants to “destroy every copy of any of the B&P Drawings” in
Defendants’ “possession, custody, or exclusive control” and any other B&P documents they
possessed. Id. at PageID.246. It also required Defendants to “destroy every copy of any Covered
Prescott Drawing”—essentially, derivative drawings that Defendant Prescott generated from
Plaintiff’s technical drawings—that they possessed. Id. Moreover, the Settlement Agreement
prohibited Defendants from “aquir[ing] or us[ing], or attempt[ing] to acquire or use, any of B&P’s
Drawings” without authorization from Plaintiff. Id. at PageID.247. And Defendants agreed “not to
challenge B&P’s ownership of or copyright to the B&P Drawings in any proceeding relating to or
arising from a breach of” the Settlement Agreement. Id. Notably, on October 28, 2022, Defendant
Miller completed two affidavits certifying that Defendants fully complied with the Settlement
Agreement’s drawing-destruction mandates. Id. at PageID.292–95.
B. This Case
This case completes the trilogy. According to Plaintiff, it “recently discovered from two
vendors” that Defendant Prescott is still “soliciting work from manufacturers” using “design
drawings that are derived from” its copyrighted drawings. ECF No. 1 at PageID.2. Plaintiff alleges
that Defendant Prescott “is distributing and using at least one technical drawing that is derived
from copyrights B&P blade design drawings for one of B&P’s vertical mixers,” and a part “that is
a near replica of B&P’s lower gear housing design, which is depicted in the associated design
drawings for the same [B&P]” mixer. Id.; see also id. at PageID.10–13. Further, Plaintiff asserts
that the substantial similarities between its blade drawings and Defendants’, taken as a whole, are
Case 1:25-cv-13348-TLL-PTM ECF No. 23, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/31/25 Page 3 of 8

- 4 -
virtually impossible without Defendants having used Plaintiff’s drawings. Id. at PageID.66. That
impossibility is due to the “unique combination of precise measurements of each piece of a mixer
blade,” id. at PageID.44–45, some of which are “not necessary to the functioning of the” blade, id.
at PageID.27, 49. Some examples of these similarities are depicted below:
Case 1:25-cv-13348-TLL-PTM ECF No. 23, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/31/25 Page 4 of 8

- 5 -
ECF No. 2 (sealed) at PageID.185, 188, 191, 196.
Plaintiff “also recently learned that” Defendant Prescott is currently competing with
Plaintiff for vertical mixers business. ECF No. 1 at PageID.3. That is, Plaintiff received
information from a “major client” that Defendant Prescott is participating in “an RFP process”
conducted by that client for “bids on vertical mixers,” and the client “imminently plans to choose
suppliers as early as November of this year.” Id. at PageID.3, 64. And according to Plaintiff,
Defendant Prescott is likely using or about to use “drawings that are copies of or derived from”
Plaintiff’s drawings to unfairly secure this business. Id. at PageID.64–65.
As a result of this alleged infringement, Plaintiff filed a Verified Complaint against
Defendants Prescott and Miller on October 21, 2025.1 See ECF Nos. 1; 2 (sealed). Plaintiff asserts
four claims: a (1) direct copyright infringement claim under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 106,
et seq., against both Defendants; (2) vicarious liability claim against Defendant Miller; (3)
contributory liability claim against Defendant Miller; and (4) breach of contract claim against both
Defendants. ECF Nos. 1 at PageID.69–78; 2 (sealed) at PageID.225–34. The next day, Plaintiff
moved for an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO) prohibiting, among other things,
Defendants’ continued use of Plaintiff’s copyrighted blade drawings and any derivative drawings.
ECF Nos. 3; 4 (sealed).
II.
Generally, courts may issue preliminary injunctive relief “only on notice to the adverse
party.” FED. R. CIV. P. 65(a)(1). But a court may issue a TRO without notice to the adverse party
under Civil Rule 65(b)(1) if the movant satisfies two prerequisites. First, a movant must set forth
“specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show[ing] that immediate and
1 This case was initially assigned to District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith, but Judge Goldsmith
recused from the case, and it was reassigned to the undersigned. ECF No. 17.
Case 1:25-cv-13348-TLL-PTM ECF No. 23, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/31/25 Page 5 of 8

- 6 -
irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard
in opposition.” FED. R. CIV. P. 65(b)(1)(A). Second, “the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any
efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.” FED. R. CIV. P.
65(b)(1)(B).
If the movant clears those procedural hurdles, the court then turns to the merits. In
determining whether to grant a TRO, a court must weigh four factors: “(1) whether the movant has
a strong likelihood of success on the merits, (2) whether the movant would suffer irreparable injury
absent preliminary injunctive relief, (3) whether granting the preliminary injunctive relief would
cause substantial harm to others, and (4) whether the public interest would be served by granting
the preliminary injunctive relief.” A & W X-Press, Inc. v. FCA US, LLC, No. 21-1805, 2022 WL
2759872, at *3 (6th Cir. July 14, 2022); Certified Restoration Dry Cleaning Network, L.L.C. v.
Tenke Corp., 511 F.3d 535, 540 (6th Cir. 2007). The TRO standard is “logically the same as for a
preliminary injunction with emphasis, however, on irreparable harm given that the purpose of a
temporary restraining order is to maintain the status quo.” ABX Air, Inc. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters,
Airline Div., 219 F. Supp. 3d 665, 670 (S.D. Ohio 2016).
III.
Against that backdrop, the threshold inquiry is whether Plaintiff’s Motion complies with
Civil Rule 65(b)(1)’s procedural prerequisites—which this Court must “scrupulously honor[].”
Alahverdian v. Nemelka, No. 3:15-CV-060, 2015 WL 1276453, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 19, 2015)
(quoting Moore’s Federal Practice § 2952); see also Prentice v. Transcend DVentures, No. 1:23-
CV-10011, 2025 WL 2901522, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 10, 2025) (noting that the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure matter and are not trifling technicalities). It does not.
Plaintiff’s Motion suffers a fatal flaw under Civil Rule 65(b)(1)(B): It does not certify “any
efforts made to give notice” to Defendants “and the reasons why it should not be required” before
Case 1:25-cv-13348-TLL-PTM ECF No. 23, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/31/25 Page 6 of 8

- 7 -
obtaining injunctive relief. Davis v. Colerain Twp., No. 1:24-CV-56, 2024 WL 488211, at *1 (S.D.
Ohio Feb. 8, 2024) (explaining that failing to certify why notice should not be required is fatal—
even if counsel certifies that he will serve the defendant). Plaintiff represents that it did not provide
notice to Defendants before filing the Motion, but that it would serve a copy of the Motion with
its initial process after it filed the Motion. ECF No. 3 at PageID.390–91, 420. But Plaintiff does
not explain why the general rule requiring notice and an opportunity for Defendant to be heard
before a court issues injunctive relief should not apply in this particular case. See generally id.
Ordinarily, a court is only “justified in proceeding ex parte” for a TRO where (1) “notice
to the adverse party is impossible,” or (2) “notice to the defendant would render fruitless further
prosecution of the action” because “there is not less drastic means for protecting the plaintiff’s
interest.” First Tech. Safety Sys., Inc. v. Depinet, 11 F.3d 641, 650 (6th Cir. 1993) (citation
modified). These two limited categories “reflect the fact that our entire jurisprudence runs counter
to the notion of court action taken before reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard has
been granted [to] both sides of a dispute.” Id. (citation modified); see also Granny Goose Foods,
Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974). Yet Plaintiff provides no explanation
why this case falls into either category.
The sole reason Plaintiff seemingly offers for proceeding ex parte is “the emergent nature
of the relief requested in the” Motion. ECF No. 3 at PageID.390–91. But Civil Rule 65(b) assumes
that all TROs are emergent by requiring immediate and irreparable injury to the moving party
under Civil Rule 65(b)(1)(A), and still requires the additional step of certifying that notice to the
adverse party “should not be required” under Civil Rule 65(b)(1)(B). In this way, proceeding ex
parte merely because of “the emergent nature of the relief requested,” ECF No. 3 at PageID.390–
91, would render Civil Rule 65(b)(1)(B)’s additional step superfluous. As a result, Plaintiff has not
Case 1:25-cv-13348-TLL-PTM ECF No. 23, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/31/25 Page 7 of 8

- 8 -
adequately satisfied Civil Rule 65(b)(1)(B)’s procedural prerequisite. So this Court cannot issue
an ex parte TRO, and Plaintiff’s Motion for a TRO, ECF Nos. 3; 4 (sealed), will thus be denied.
See Slave Legacy, LLC v. Son of Slave, No. 3:23-CV-152, 2023 WL 3919317, at *5 (S.D. Ohio
June 9, 2023) (holding that courts may not issue TROs if Civil Rule 65(b)(1)(B) has not been
satisfied) (collecting cases); see also Partner Assessment Corp. v. Rosen, No. 1:25-CV-12382,
2025 WL 2336107, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 13, 2025) (same).2
IV.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order,
ECF No. 3; 4 (sealed), is DENIED.
This is not a final order and does not close this case.
Dated: October 31, 2025 	s/Thomas L. Ludington
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge
2 This Court makes one final observation. Civil Rule 65(c) requires the movant to provide security
“in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party
found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained” by a preliminary injunction or TRO. In
Plaintiff’s proposed order, it leaves the security amount blank and provides no information for an
assessment of a proper security amount. ECF No. 3-1 at PageID.426. Such information is needed
for those determinations. See Partner Assessment Corp. v. Rosen, No. 1:25-CV-12382, 2025 WL
2409195, at *9 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 20, 2025).
Case 1:25-cv-13348-TLL-PTM ECF No. 23, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/31/25 Page 8 of 8