Beware of Paparazzi – Review

A preliminary injunction has been obtained by Paparazzi against a former employee and consultant.

In their initial lawsuit, Paparazzi claimed that former employees Melissa Sorenson and Geraldine Souza helped them try to stop Melissa Sorenson.

preventing the disclosure of sensitive information is Kylee Robinette, Morgan Ferguson, Jennifer Dyer, Jaime Robinson, Jennifer Carrol, and Kimberly Drewry.

Paparazzi asserts Through unlawful access, Sorenson initially got and then proceeded to gather its private information. The material was subsequently posted by Sorenson in a FaceBook group operated by former distributors.

An injunction hearing was convened on May 20th after a Temporary Restraining Order forbidding the behavior had already been obtained.

The judge continued by granting Paparazzi’s motion for a preliminary injunction after noting that every defendant, except Burgess, was present and was unrepresented in court.

The court’s rationale is as follows, condensing several qualifying factors:

According to Paparazzi, there is a strong possibility that its breach of contract claim, which forms the foundation for preliminary injunctive relief, would be successful on the merits after considering its claims in its submission and during the Hearing as well as the Defendants’ answers.

Without injunctive relief, Paparazzi have shown that irreparable harm is likely to happen.

As a result of the discovery and dissemination of the Paparazzi’s Confidential Information, immediate action is required.

Confidential information is particularly difficult to safeguard and retrieve once it has been shared. Furthermore, the Defendants’ revelation of Confidential Information damaged Paparazzi’s reputation in a way that cannot be repaired via financial compensation.

Paparazzi is concerned about the continual deterioration of its business reputation with its Consultants and clients, the possible loss of competitive advantages if rivals utilize Paparazzi’s confidential information and the actual possibility that Consultants may sever ties with the company.

To safeguard its confidential information and its company, Paparazzi and Sorenson agreed to a legally enforceable confidentiality agreement.

Maintaining contractual rights, especially confidentiality agreements, is in the public interest.

The protection of proprietary corporate data and brand reputations is also in the public’s best interest.

This counts in Paparazzi’s favor while seeking injunctive relief.

The previously issued TRO is made permanent by the granted preliminary injunction.

Specifically, defendants are forbidden from accessing, disseminating, and/or discussing Paparazzi’s private information.

I anticipate settlements will be revealed at some time because the defendants don’t seem motivated to fight the case. This case won’t go to trial, in my opinion.

20th June 2022 update The court set the trial date for October 16th, 2023 on June 10th, subject to any developments between then and then.

That’s the most recent, albeit we have yet to see this case go to trial.

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *