Sharif v. Dawson et al

1
26cv965-LL-JLB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
STEVEN SHARIF, as an individual and
derivatively on behalf of INTREPID
STUDIOS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT DAWSON, RYAN OGDEN,
THERESA FETTE, AARON BARTELS,
and TFE GAMES HOLDINGS LLC,
Defendants,
And
INTREPID STUDIOS, INC.,
Nominal Defendant.
Case No.: 26cv965-LL-JLB
ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE
MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER
[ECF No. 10]
Before the Court is Plaintiff Steven Sharif’s Ex Parte Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order (“Motion”). ECF No. 10. Plaintiff’s counsel attests to meeting and
confer with counsel for TFE Games Holdings LLC (“TFE”) on February 25, 2026 to
discuss this Motion, and to serving the Motion via email to TFE’s counsel on March 3,
Case 3:26-cv-00965-LL-MMP Document 20 Filed 03/04/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 13

2
26cv965-LL-JLB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2026.1 ECF No. 10-6, Declaration of Jordan W. Garman (“Garman Decl.”), ¶ 6; ECF No.
18 ¶ 3. Having reviewed the Motion and the record, the Court GRANTS the Motion.
I. 	BACKGROUND
The following factual allegations are from Plaintiff’s verified complaint [ECF No.
1], which includes claims of misappropriation of trade secrets and violation of section 9610
of the California Commercial Code, and declarations in support of the Motion.
Plaintiff is a co-founder and former CEO of Intrepid Studios, Inc. (“Intrepid”) who
served on its board of directors from the company’s inception in 2015 until his resignation
on January 19, 2026. ECF No. 10-2, Declaration of Steven Sharif (“Sharif Decl.”), ¶ 1;
ECF No. 1 ¶ 22. Plaintiff invented or was directly involved in creating Intrepid’s most
valuable assets: its intellectual property and trade secrets developed for its Massively
Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game (MMORPG) Ashes of Creation. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 1,
10.
Intrepid’s intellectual property and trade secrets (“Trade Secrets Materials”) include
the following:
a. Audio/visual effects;
b. Models for characters, monsters, the environment, visual effects,
text narrative, sound effects, and animations (i.e., production
assets created by employees/contractors and incorporated into
builds);
c. The Company’s confidential source code and technical
implementation architecture, including server-side node
simulation logic, distributed event-processing systems, dynamic
resource-allocation algorithms, balancing formulas, and backend
systems governing world persistence, territory control, and
economic dependencies;
d. Designs and implementations of server meshing technology and
distributed networking systems;
e. Proprietary Player versus Player risk-reward scaling algorithms
1 Plaintiff’s counsel attests that TFE’s counsel’s firm obtained waivers of service on behalf
of the remaining defendants, and so believes they have received notice of this Motion
through TFE’s counsel. ECF No. 18 ¶ 3.
Case 3:26-cv-00965-LL-MMP Document 20 Filed 03/04/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 13

3
26cv965-LL-JLB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and conditional reward-modification logic implemented within
the combat and flagging systems;
f. The implemented Node-system engine logic (predicate-based
world-state engine, conditional matrices, progression thresholds,
etc.) as embodied in the Company’s code and backend
architecture;
g. Developmental tools used in game creation (population tool,
spawner systems, quest/story arc systems, internal admin tools);
h. The event tool used to create open world events, wars, and caravan
systems;
i. The implemented seasonal environmental systems as built into the
engine;
j. The implemented trade/caravan systems, including economic
balancing parameters and resource distribution logic;
k. Class implementation logic and stat balancing systems as
embodied in the Company’s codebase;
l. Compiled builds, deployment pipelines, infrastructure
configurations, and production environments.
ECF No. 1 ¶ 25.
Intrepid began acquiring debt financing in 2017, much of which Plaintiff and his co-
founder and husband John Moore personally guaranteed. Id. ¶¶ 22, 32. In 2020, Intrepid
acquired a $6 million loan from CommerceWest Bank pursuant to the Federal Reserve’s
Main Street Lending Program. Id. ¶ 32. The loan was personally guaranteed by Moore and
was collateralized by all of Intrepid’s assets, including its Trade Secrets Materials. Id.
From 2021 to 2025, Defendant Richard Dawson became a lender for Intrepid and
continuously extended debt to the company. Id. ¶ 33. Plaintiff alleges that Dawson was
able to gain greater amounts of equity and control by coercion such as threatening to
withhold financing for payroll days before payroll deadlines. Id. ¶¶ 36–37. Dawson
eventually became the majority shareholder of Intrepid and remained the primary provider
of “crucial debt financing.” Id. ¶ 43.
In May 2024, Dawson securitized his debt against all assets and all personal property
of Intrepid, including intellectual property, which includes the Trade Secrets Materials. Id.
¶ 44. Lenders that hold senior priority positions to Dawson are the Small Business
Case 3:26-cv-00965-LL-MMP Document 20 Filed 03/04/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 13

4
26cv965-LL-JLB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Administration and CommerceWest Bank. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Dawson knew or should
have known of these senior liens because they are publicly available. Id.
Dawson voted himself and Ryan Ogden, his close business associate, onto the board
of directors. Id. ¶ 45. In September 2024, the board appointed Dawson as Chairman of the
Board and Ogden as CFO. Id. Plaintiff ceased to have access to active company bank
accounts after Dawson directed Ogden to open new bank accounts for Intrepid at Pathway
Bank. Id. By August 2025, Dawson elected to the Board close associates Theresa Fette,
who was also a substantial creditor to Intrepid, and Aaron Bartels. Id. ¶ 46.
In December 2025, Intrepid partnered with online gaming platform Steam, owned
by Valve Corporation (“Valve”), to do an early access launch of Ashes of Creation. Id. ¶
49. Plaintiff alleges that Ogden assured CommerceWest Bank that the revenue from the
early 	access 	launch 	owed 	to 	Intrepid 	would 	cover 	outstanding 	obligations 	on
CommerceWest Bank’s loan. Id. ¶ 50.
In 2025, Dawson, Ogden, Fette, and Bartels (collectively the “Board Defendants”)
devised a plan to take possession of Intrepid’s assets “via a wrongful Article 9 foreclosure
process” using Dawson’s junior secured lien to declare default, without providing legally
required notice to senior secured lenders, so that they could transfer Intrepid assets to
TFE—the new company created and controlled by Dawson—“and wipe out equity holders
and prior creditors in Intrepid.” Id. ¶¶ 51–53, 63. Plaintiff unsuccessfully tried to convince
the Board to abandon its foreclosure scheme, and on January 15, 2026, he informed senior
secured lender CommerceWest Bank of the plan. Id.¶¶ 56–64.
On January 16, 2026, Dawson caused Intrepid to declare default, and caused TFE to
foreclose on Intrepid’s assets and engage in a private sale as a non-judicial disposition. Id.
¶ 65. The Board Defendants and TFE did not advertise the sale in industry-standard
publications or platforms, or involve a broker or auctioneer, and did not publish any
marketing of the sale in any manner. Id. ¶ 66.
After CommerceWest Bank learned of the wrongful foreclosure and contacted Valve
to intercept the funds due to Intrepid from its early access launch, the Board Defendants
Case 3:26-cv-00965-LL-MMP Document 20 Filed 03/04/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 13

5
26cv965-LL-JLB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
caused Intrepid to terminate all Intrepid employees in violation of the federal WARN Act
and California’s WARN Act. Id. ¶¶ 71–73. On February 3, 2026, Valve terminated
Intrepid’s partnership with Steam. Id. ¶ 81.
TFE and Board Defendants are soliciting former employees to provide them access
to Ashes of Creation, along with its intellectual property and Trade Secrets Materials, and
attempting to sell Ashes of Creation, along with its intellectual property and Trade Secrets
Materials—“the lifeblood of the Company and key to the value of shares owned by Sharif
and the Derivative Shareholders”— to competitor game developers in order to recoup their
own investments. Id. ¶ 82.
On February 14, 2026, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging derivative and direct
claims against Defendants for violations of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and
California’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA), violation of section 9101 et seq. of the
California Commercial Code (“Article 9 claim”), as well as other claims. ECF No. 1. On
March 2, 2026, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for a temporary restraining order and order
to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue that (1) enjoins Defendants
and their agents from “accessing, using, selling, distributing, or causing anyone to access,
use, sell, or distribute Intrepid’s trade secrets, including any accounts or applications
containing the trade secrets,” and (2) appoints “a neutral intellectual-property custodian or
escrow agent to hold and control, on a temporary and limited basis, the credentials,
administrative privileges, and source-control access to the accounts, platforms, and
repositories that contain Intrepid’s trade secrets, for the sole purpose of preventing any
access, use, sale, or dissemination of those trade secrets pending adjudication of the parties’
ownership dispute.” ECF No. 10 at 2.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
The purpose of a temporary restraining order (TRO) is to preserve the status quo and
prevent irreparable harm until a preliminary injunction may be held. Granny Goose Foods,
Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Loc. No. 70 of Alameda Cty., 415 U.S. 423,
439 (1974). The legal standard for a TRO and a preliminary injunction is “substantially
Case 3:26-cv-00965-LL-MMP Document 20 Filed 03/04/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
5 of 13

6
26cv965-LL-JLB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
identical.” Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7
(9th Cir. 2001). The party seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that (1) he is
likely to succeed on the merits, (2) he will likely suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
preliminary relief, (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor, and (4) an injunction is in
the public interest. City & Cty. of San Francisco v. United States Citizenship & Immigr.
Servs., 944 F.3d 773, 789 (9th Cir. 2019) (citing Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555
U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). In the Ninth Circuit, the court may apply a sliding scale test in which
“serious questions going to the merits” and a balance of hardships that tips sharply toward
the moving party can support the issuance of a preliminary injunction, as long as there is
also a showing of a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the public
interest. All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011).
“[A] preliminary injunction is customarily granted on the basis of procedures that
are less formal and evidence that is less complete than in a trial on the merits.” Univ. of
Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). “The Court is permitted to consider
inadmissible 	evidence 	in 	deciding 	a 	motion 	for 	a preliminary 	injunction.” 	Disney
Enterprises, Inc. v. VidAngel, Inc., 224 F. Supp. 3d 957, 966 (C.D. Cal. 2016), aff'd, 869
F.3d 	848 	(9th 	Cir. 	2017) 	(citation 	omitted). 	“While 	district 	courts 	may 	consider
inadmissible evidence in the context of a preliminary injunction, this does not mean that
evidentiary issues have no relevance to this proceeding. Such issues, however, properly go
to weight rather than admissibility.” Id. (citation omitted).
III. 	DISCUSSION
A. 	Likelihood of Success of the Merits
Plaintiff alleges that because the Article 9 foreclosure that transferred Intrepid’s
Trade Secrets Materials to TFE was unlawful, any use by Defendants’ of the Trade Secrets
Materials is misappropriation. ECF No. 10-1 at 24.
1. 	Article 9 Claim
Plaintiff has established “serious questions going to the merits” on his Article 9
claim. 	Plaintiff 	alleges 	that 	TFE 	and 	Board 	Defendants 	knowingly 	violated 	the
Case 3:26-cv-00965-LL-MMP Document 20 Filed 03/04/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
6 of 13

7
26cv965-LL-JLB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
requirements for foreclosure and disposition of collateral under Article 9 of the Uniform
Commercial Code, codified in section 9101 et seq. of the California Commercial Code.
ECF No. 10-1 at 18. By failing to “send a signed notification of disposition” of any of
Intrepid’s assets to Intrepid as “the debtor” and CommerceWest Bank as “any other secured
party,” TFE violated section 9611(c) of the California Commercial Code. Cal. Com. Code
§ 9611(c); ECF No. 10-9 at 26–27 (“Notice of Disposition of Collateral at Private Sale”).
Also, by conducting a sale of Intrepid’s assets to TFE—both controlled by Dawson— and
calculated in a way to limit notice of the sale to itself and not other potential bidders, TFE
failed to pursue “disposition of collateral” in a “commercially reasonable” manner, as
required by section 9610(b) of the California Commercial Code. See Cal. Com. Code §§
9611(b)–(c), 9627(b); 	Gemcap Lending I LLC v. Crop USA Ins. Agency Inc., No.
CV1305504SJOMANX, 2015 WL 12746212, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2015), aff’d, 643
F. App’x 647 (9th Cir. 2016) (finding foreclosure sale was not commercially reasonable
when it was made between a party and itself and when notice was calculated to reach only
certain parties and not other potential bidders); Ford & Vlahos v. ITT Com. Fin. Corp., 8
Cal. 4th 1220, 1229, 885 P.2d 877 (1994) (noting that a sale of valuable collateral in a
commercially reasonable manner would include advertising the auction “in the relevant
market by, for example, informing brokers, placing reasonably prominent announcements
in recognized trade journals, or contacting individuals or entities known to be seeking [this
type of collateral]”).\
2. 	Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Claims
Courts may analyze misappropriation claims under DTSA and CUTSA together
because the elements are substantially similar. InteliClear, LLC v. ETC Glob. Holdings,
Inc., 978 F.3d 653, 657 (9th Cir. 2020). To succeed, the moving party must prove “(1) that
the plaintiff possessed a trade secret, (2) that the defendant misappropriated the trade
secret; and (3) that the misappropriation caused or threatened damage to the plaintiff.” Id.
at 657–58. To show misappropriation, “a plaintiff must show one of two categories: (1)
wrongful acquisition, or (2) disclosure or use of the trade secret without consent.” Implicit
Case 3:26-cv-00965-LL-MMP Document 20 Filed 03/04/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
7 of 13

8
26cv965-LL-JLB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Conversions, Inc. v. Stine, No. 24-CV-03744-WHO, 2024 WL 4112335, at *9 (N.D. Cal.
Sept. 6, 2024).
The Court finds Plaintiff has established “serious questions going to the merits” on
his misappropriation of trade secrets claims. Intrepid’s Trade Secrets Materials include,
inter alia, source code, algorithms, and technical implementation architecture that are not
generally known to the public and kept confidential. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 25–29; see Implicit
Conversions, Inc., 2024 WL 4112335, at *9 (finding proprietary and confidential source
code and software tools to be trade secrets). By showing that TFE acquired the Trade
Secrets 	Materials 	through 	an 	unlawful 	Article 	9 	foreclosure, 	Plaintiff 	has 	shown
misappropriation through wrongful acquisition. See Implicit Conversions, Inc., 2024 WL
4112335, at *9. This misappropriation has caused damage to Intrepid because it has been
stripped of its primary assets that make up its main product, Ashes of Creation.
B. 	Irreparable Harm
The Court finds irreparable harm is likely in the absence of an injunction to preserve
the status quo. Defendants are trying to sell Ashes of Creation and the Trade Secrets
Materials that comprise it, and have identified at least one buyer. Garman Decl. ¶ 6
(“[C]ounsel for TFE acknowledged that TFE is engaged in discussions with at least one
potential buyer of Intrepid and its assets.”). Disclosure of the trade secrets through a sale
irreparably harms Intrepid through the destruction of their secrecy. See N. Atl. Instruments,
Inc. v. Haber, 188 F.3d 38, 49 (2d Cir. 1999) (“We have held that ‘loss of trade secrets
cannot be measured in money damages’ because ‘[a] trade secret once lost is, of course,
lost forever.’” (citation omitted)). And stripping Intrepid of its primary valuable assets is
also likely to destroy its business and goodwill. Sharif Decl. ¶ 8 (foreclosure has led to
substantial backlash within the gaming community and numerous refund requests for the
early access version of Ashes of Creation).
Plaintiff and TFE have both notified the Court of a related case in Nevada state court
that shows the likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction to preserve
the status quo. Garman Decl. ¶¶ 3–5; ECF No. 19. The Nevada court issued a temporary
Case 3:26-cv-00965-LL-MMP Document 20 Filed 03/04/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
8 of 13

9
26cv965-LL-JLB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
restraining order on February 24, 2026 that temporarily enjoins Sharif’s “agents” from,
inter alia, withholding usernames and passwords for Intrepid’s technology platforms,
which contain its Trade Secrets Materials and intellectual property. ECF No. 19-1 at 6;
Garman Decl. ¶ 5. The Court notes that although the Nevada case is similar to this one,
there are fundamental differences in that the Nevada case does not involve trade secrets,
and it presumes that TFE is the lawful owner of Intrepid’s assets. This case involves a
dispute over who is the lawful owner of Intrepid’s assets and is primarily focused on trade
secret misappropriation. However, the Court notes the parties have raised potential issues
such as first-to-file and abstention and will invite briefing on these. At this procedural
posture, the Court finds that preserving the status quo for a limited time is the best way to
prevent irreparable harm, should all the elements be met.
C. 	Public Interest
The Court finds the public’s interest in vindicating intellectual property rights is
served by preventing misappropriation by unlawfully obtaining and using trade secrets. See
Earthbound Corp. v. MiTek USA, Inc., No. C16-1150 RSM, 2016 WL 4418013, at *10
(W.D. Wash. Aug. 19, 2016) (finding misappropriation of trade secrets is “harmful not
only to the individual or entity whose secrets are purloined, but also to the public” because
it “undermines business development and stability; preventing such conduct is in the
public’s interest”).
D. 	Balance of Hardships
The Court finds the balance of hardships tips sharply toward Plaintiff. Intrepid has
already suffered harm to its business and reputation from the likely unlawful Article 9
foreclosure and sale of its assets to TFE. TFE is poised to access the Trade Secrets
Materials and then sell them to a third party with Ashes of Creation. Even if TFE keeps
Ashes of Creation to develop itself, Intrepid will have lost its primary valuable asset and
any chance of bringing Ashes of Creation to market itself. A TRO to preserve the status
quo while the ownership of the assets is determined will not harm Defendants and will
prevent the destruction of their secrecy or their complete loss in a sale to a third-party. See
Case 3:26-cv-00965-LL-MMP Document 20 Filed 03/04/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
9 of 13

10
26cv965-LL-JLB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Steele Ins. Agency, Inc., No. 2:13-CV-00784-MCE, 2013 WL
2151553, at *14 (E.D. Cal. May 16, 2013) (“Courts have found that the balance of
hardships tips in favor of a plaintiff seeking an injunction which would ‘merely prohibit
[the d]efendants from misappropriating the trade secrets of [the p]laintiff.’” (citation
omitted)). To the extent that Defendants need access to “wind up Intrepid’s business and
fulfill its obligations under the WARN act,” there does not appear to be a need for access
to Trade Secrets Materials to do so. See ECF No. 19-1 at 5.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s ex parte application for
a temporary restraining order and ORDERS as follows:
1. Defendants Robert Dawson, Ryan Ogden, Theresa Fette, Aaron Bartels, and
TFE Games Holdings LLC (collectively, “Defendants”), along with any of
their agents, are enjoined from accessing, using, selling, distributing, or
causing anyone to access, use, sell, or distribute the trade secrets of Intrepid,
defined as:
a. 	Audio/visual effects;
b. Models for characters, monsters, the environment, visual effects, text
narrative, sound effects, and animations (i.e., production assets created
by employees/contractors and incorporated into builds);
c. 	The Company’s confidential source code and technical implementation
architecture, including server-side node simulation logic, distributed
event-processing 	systems, 	dynamic 	resource-allocation 	algorithms,
balancing formulas, and backend systems governing world persistence,
territory control, and economic dependencies;
d. Designs 	and 	implementations 	of 	server 	meshing 	technology 	and
distributed networking systems;
Case 3:26-cv-00965-LL-MMP Document 20 Filed 03/04/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
10 of 13

11
26cv965-LL-JLB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
e. 	Proprietary Player versus Player risk-reward scaling algorithms and
conditional reward-modification logic implemented within the combat
and flagging systems;
f. 	The implemented Node-system engine logic (predicate-based world-
state engine, conditional matrices, progression thresholds, etc.) as
embodied in the Company’s code and backend architecture;
g. Developmental tools used in game creation (population tool, spawner
systems, quest/story arc systems, internal admin tools);
h. The event tool used to create open world events, wars, and caravan
systems;
i. 	The implemented seasonal environmental systems as built into the
engine;
j. 	The 	implemented 	trade/caravan 	systems, 	including 	economic
balancing parameters and resource distribution logic;
k. 	Class implementation logic and stat balancing systems as embodied in
the Company’s codebase; and
l. 	Compiled builds, deployment pipelines, infrastructure configurations,
and production environments.
2. Defendants, and any of their agents, are enjoined from accessing the following
accounts of Intrepid, for the purpose of accessing, using, selling, distributing,
or causing anyone to access, use, sell, or distribute the trade secrets of Intrepid:
a. 	AWS;
b. Perforce;
c. 	Github;
d. Miro;
e. 	MongoDB;
f. 	g-suite — Google;
g. Google workspace;
Case 3:26-cv-00965-LL-MMP Document 20 Filed 03/04/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
11 of 13

12
26cv965-LL-JLB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
h. Microsoft;
i. 	Slack;
j. 	Boomlibrary;
k. Waves;
l. 	Bitwarden;
m. Resemble.ai;
n. DB Scheme;
o. GitKraken;
p. JetBrains;
q. incident.io;
r. 	Lens;
s. 	Autodesk;
t. 	Adobe;
u. Docker;
v. ScaleMatrix;
w. CDW | HPE; and
x. Universal Foundry.
3. A neutral intellectual property custodian or escrow agent (“Intellectual
Property Custodian”) shall be appointed. The Intellectual Property Custodian
shall hold and control, on a temporary and limited basis, the credentials,
administrative 	privileges, 	and 	source-control 	access 	to 	the 	accounts,
platforms, and repositories that contain Intrepid’s trade secrets, for the sole
purpose of preventing any access, use, sale, or dissemination of Intrepid’s
trade secrets until such further order of this Court.
4. The parties shall meet and confer and jointly propose an Intellectual Property
Custodian for appointment by this Court by March 9, 2026.
5. The Intellectual Property Custodian shall have control of the passwords to any
of the above-listed Intrepid accounts and access to the above-listed Intrepid
Case 3:26-cv-00965-LL-MMP Document 20 Filed 03/04/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
12 of 13

13
26cv965-LL-JLB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
accounts, and shall be empowered to grant access to Defendants on a limited
basis should just cause be shown that access to the above-listed accounts is
required for a reason other than access to Intrepid’s trade secrets.
6. Defendants are enjoined from accessing any accounts or other systems
belonging to any former employee or contractor of Intrepid for the purpose of
accessing, using, selling, distributing, or causing anyone to access, use, sell,
or distribute the trade secrets.
7. Defendants 	are 	ORDERED 	TO 	SHOW 	CAUSE 	why 	a 	preliminary
injunction should not issue pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65
that enjoins Defendants from the above-listed conduct during the pendency of
this action.2 Defendant must file a written response, if any, on or before
March 11, 2026. Plaintiff may file a reply to Defendant’s response on or
before March 13, 2026.
8. The Court sets a preliminary injunction hearing for 	March 18, 2026,
at 4:30 p.m. PST in Courtroom 14B.
9. This temporary restraining order is effective on the date and time of filing and
remains in effect until the date and time of the preliminary injunction hearing
specified above, absent further order from the Court.
10. Plaintiff shall post a bond in the amount of $1,000. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c).
11. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order on Defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 4, 2026
2 The parties may also address in their briefing any potential impact of the Nevada state
court case.
Case 3:26-cv-00965-LL-MMP Document 20 Filed 03/04/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
13 of 13