Petitioner commenced this Article 75 Continuing looking for a preliminary injunction in support of arbitration. Petitioner asks that the courtroom to forestall Respondent from publicly disclosing Petitioner’s confidential data and publicly disparaging Petitioner and its personnel, in what Petitioner alleges is a transparent violation of the events’ Employment Settlement….
Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a video editor in or about December 2019. Beneath the phrases of his Employment Settlement, dated December 17, 2019, Respondent was an at-will worker.
Petitioner alleges its journalism and news-gathering actions contain the usage of secret gadgets and undercover journalists, who generally use pseudonyms to guard their identities. Respondent turned conscious of the strategies and gadgets utilized by Petitioner to collect data, the strategies Petitioner used to painting the data gathered, and the identities of the undercover journalists who gathered such data.
Petitioner requires in its employment agreements—together with Respondent’s Employment Settlement—that its’ staff strictly preserve the confidentiality of such data, each throughout and after their employment. Related provisions from Respondent’s Employment Settlement embody:
Paragraph 12 of the which states Respondent will preserve and shield the confidentiality of Petitioner’ Confidential Info each throughout and after his employment; and
Paragraph 17 which prohibits Respondent from disparaging Petitioner or its personnel throughout his employment and after its termination; and
Paragraph 18 which prohibits Respondent from publishing any details about Petitioner, both straight or by means of his brokers, each throughout and after the time period of his employment; and
Paragraphs 12, 17, and 18 additionally present {that a} violation of any considered one of these provisions paragraphs would trigger irreparable hurt to Petitioner, and that Challenge Veritas entitling Petitioner to injunctive reduction; and
Paragraph 26 offers for damages for the breach of stated provisions together with liquidated damages.
On or about September 15, 2020, Respondent voluntarily resigned his place with Petitioner and allegedly launched into a profession as an grownup movie actor and standup comic.
In August 2022, Respondent started publishing a collection of movies on YouTube which addressed press protection about a number of lawsuits between Petitioner and a terminated worker named Antonietta Zappier. Respondent posted stated movies to his YouTube channel below the identify “Jean Jacques the Cock.”
Respondent revealed seven movies on August 7, 2022; August 8, 2022; August 9, 2022; August 10, 2022; August 15, 2022, September 1, 2022, and January 11, 2023. Petitioner alleges that in every video, Respondent disclosed proprietary and confidential data. Respondent additionally blatantly disparaged Petitioner and its personnel (together with, primarily, Challenge Veritas’ CEO James O’Keefe) within the movies.
In a minimum of one of many movies, Respondent acknowledged that he was violating the phrases of his Employment Settlement with Petitioner.
On August 30, 2022, counsel for Petitioner despatched Respondent a cease-and-desist letter directing Respondent to take down movies posted as of stated date and desist from publishing any additional such movies or different public statements disparaging Petitioner or its staff. Respondent did take down the movies however days later, on or about September 1, 2022, revealed a sixth video—which, Petitioner alleges continues to be up on YouTube—through which Respondent mocks Petitioner’s effort to forestall Respondent from persevering with his conduct….
Petitioner filed a proper request for Arbitration on September 7, 2022. Within the Arbitration, Petitioner seeks to implement the phrases of the Employment Settlement and procure damages and a everlasting injunction….
CPLR § 7502(c) permits the courtroom to preliminarily enjoin Respondent’s conduct through the pendency of the Arbitration pursuant to Articles 62 and 63 of the CPLR, if failing to take action would render any award in Arbitration ineffectual….
On the file earlier than this courtroom Petitioner has asserted the prima facie components for breach of contract, and there for has established a probability of success on the deserves. It’s uncontested that the events have a written contract, and that Respondent has engaged in conduct which violates the provisions of that contract. Respondent’s movies clearly disparage Petitioner and its officers/staff, and Respondent acknowledges that his is in violation of the phrases of the Employment Settlement on multiple occasion within the movies.
Respondent additionally discloses the expertise utilized by Petitioner to acquire data from sources, the manners through which the data is collected by undercover journalists, and the identify of a minimum of one undercover journalist.
Furthermore, within the Employment Settlement Respondent particularly agreed to injunctive reduction within the occasion of a breach, and such provisions are enforceable….
A call granting the TRO and sealing the parts of the filings to be saved confidential will protect the established order ante between the events pending the end result of the arbitration.
The paperwork requested to be sealed, concern proceedings referring to proprietary and confidential data belonging to Petitioner that Respondent was solely aware about pursuant to his employment as a videographer. Pursuant to the Employment Settlement between the events Respondent agreed to maintain such data confidential.
Beneath 22 NYCRR § 216.1, the Court docket is permitted to seal courtroom data, in entire or partially, “upon a written discovering of fine trigger” specifying the grounds thereof.
“New York courts have licensed sealing the data of Article 75 proceedings involving arbitrable disputes because the matter correctly belongs in arbitration and the fabric filed with the courtroom belongs not within the courtroom, however within the information of the arbitrating physique.”
The confidential data Petitioner seeks to seal issues its undercover journalistic operations, that are described intimately within the Petition. Particularly, the confidential data pertains to the best way Petitioner gathers information, the expertise it makes use of, the identify of an undercover journalist, and the way the group edits and presents the data it receives from its undercover journalists.
If the courtroom doesn’t seal the related parts of the Petition, the confidential data will likely be republished, which might undermine the aim of the arbitration.
Petitioner has taken affordable steps to guard the confidentiality of such data, similar to, for instance, requiring its staff to signal employment agreements containing provisions that shield the confidentiality of such data.
Because the underlying arbitration continuing is correctly earlier than the American Arbitration Affiliation, and there’s a confidentiality settlement pertaining to the data at concern, it’s correct for the Court docket to seal the paperwork as requested by Petitioner. Furthermore, there is no such thing as a countervailing public curiosity that might be furthered by the disclosure of this data….
WHEREFORE it’s hereby:
ORDERED that Respondent PATRJCE THIBODEAU, is hereby enjoined through the pendency of the underlying arbitration from:
(a) publishing movies to YouTube, or publishing statements on every other public discussion board, which disclose Challenge Veritas’ Confidential Info; and
(b) publishing movies to YouTube, or publishing statements to every other public discussion board, which disparage Challenge Veritas and its personnel; and
(c) utilizing and/or disclosing Challenge Veritas’ proprietary and Confidential Info ….
Congratulations to Justin Kelton, who represents Challenge Veritas.
