On July 24, one day after CoStar Group asked a judge in the U.S. District Court in California for an order for expedited discovery in its continuing legal conflict with Move, Inc., the parent company of Realtor.com, Move responded with its own filing, asking Judge George H. Wu to deny the request.
The case revolves around a data theft lawsuit and comes amid a clash over portal supremacy, especially between CoStar’s homes.com and Move’s realtor.com.
The expedited discovery issue filings follow closely on the heels of Move seeking an injunction preventing CoStar from using improperly accessed proprietary information it claims James Kaminsky, a CoStar employee formerly employed by Move.
Kaminsky has been placed on paid leave by CoStar until the legalities have been played out in court.
Move’s latest filing refers back to the preliminary injunction the company is seeking, which has not yet been ruled on by the court, writing that “Defendants (CoStar and Kaminsky) do not want the preliminary injunction request to be heard. Their ex parte application (for expedited discovery) is an attempt to further delay preliminary injunction proceedings. That has appeared to be their strategy from the beginning, when they ignored a request to negotiate a Confidentiality Protective Order before the preliminary injunction papers were filed and then rewrote Move’s proposed protective order (based on the Court’s model) to turn what should have taken a few hours into a two-week obfuscation project. Defendants have not been served with the sealed version of the preliminary injunction papers because they don’t want to be served, and they are accomplishing that by stalling entry of a Confidentiality Protective Order.
“Meanwhile, Defendants’ highly unusual ex parte application for early discovery in connection with the preliminary injunction motion utterly fails to identify any specific information they need to oppose the motion, let alone any legal basis or authority to support such a request. They provide zero basis for the sweeping and unprecedented pre-hearing discovery being sought. They do not identify any particular interrogatory they claim is needed, nor do they identify a single proposed document request. And their application provides no explanation for why any particular discovery is necessary at this stage of the proceeding or why that discovery cannot wait until after the Court rules on the Preliminary Injunction Motion.”
CoStar responded with another filing on July 25. It simply sought to clarify its position in response to Move’s filing July 24, writing that:
“The record to date is one-sided: CoStar has offered testimony that CoStar does not have and is not using the information at issue; and defendants’ counsel have confirmed all relevant devices have been preserved and that Mr. Kaminsky, on leave, has no access to the information at issue, and no access to CoStar’s systems.
“Move’s brief offers no rebuttal beyond rank speculation, nor could it. There is good cause to permit reciprocal expedited discovery to proceed in an orderly fashion, and no evidence of any prejudice, or exigent circumstances.”
This is a developing story. Stay tuned to RISMedia for further updates.
