BORDER STATES INDUSTRIES INC v. NISEWONGER et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
BORDER STATES INDUSTRIES, INC,
Plaintiff,
v. 	CASE NO. 3:25cv2260-MCR-HTC
ERIC NISEWONGER
also known as
BO NISEWONGER, and
GATEWAY ELECTRICAL SUPPLY LLC,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER
Plaintiff Border States Industries, Inc. has filed a “Verified Complaint”
alleging trade secret misappropriation claims against Defendants Eric Nisewonger
and Gateway Electrical Supply LLC, in violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act,
18 U.S.C. § 1836, et seq., and Florida law, Fla. Stat. § 688.002. ECF No. 1. Attached
is the Declaration of Kevin V. Bluml, a computer forensics expert, attesting that
documents were accessed and files were potentially copied on the last days that
Nisewonger worked for Border States. 	ECF 1–3. 	Simultaneously with the
Complaint, Border States filed an Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining
Order, seeking to restrain the Defendants from further use and disclosure of its trade
Case 3:25-cv-02260-MCR-HTC Document 7 Filed 11/14/25 Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3
CASE NO. 3:25cv2260-MCR-HTC
secrets and to require them to submit their computers, devices and accounts for a
forensic examination. ECF No. 3. No affidavit accompanies the motion.
Like a preliminary injunction, a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) is “an
extraordinary and drastic remedy” to be granted only if the movant establishes: (1)
a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits; (2) a likelihood of irreparable
injury in the absence of the TRO; (3) that the movant’s threatened injury outweighs
the harm it may cause to the adverse party; and (4) that if issued, the TRO would not
be adverse to the public interest. 	McDonald’s Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301,
1306 (11th Cir. 1998); see also Parker v. State Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 275 F.3d
1032, 1035 (11th Cir. 2001). 	The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide some
built-in protections, stating that an ex parte TRO may issue only if (1) “specific facts
in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable
injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be
heard in opposition,” and (2) “the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts
made to give notice and the reasons why [notice] should not be required.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 65(b)(1) (A), (B). If injunctive relief is issued without notice, a hearing must
be promptly held because the TRO expires after 14 days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2),
(3). 	Also, the moving party must be required to give security in the event the
nonmoving party is found to have been wrongfully restrained. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c).
Case 3:25-cv-02260-MCR-HTC Document 7 Filed 11/14/25 Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3
CASE NO. 3:25cv2260-MCR-HTC
On review, the motion must be denied for the failure to comply with the Rule.
The Complaint is not in fact verified, despite its label,1 and the facts alleged are only
partially verified by the forensic expert’s declaration. 	Moreover, that declaration
does not “clearly show” that irreparable injury will result before the adverse party
can be heard in opposition for purposes of Rule 65(b)(1)(A).2 Additionally, there is
no certification in writing by an attorney as to the efforts made to give notice or the
reasons why notice should not be required, for purposes of Rule 65(b)(1)(B), and no
amount of security has been offered nor has Border States provided any reason why
security should not be required in this instance, for purposes of Rule 65(c).
Accordingly, the Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, ECF
No. 3, is DENIED without prejudice.
DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of November 2025.
M. Casey Rodgers
M. CASEY RODGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1 The Complaint is labeled as “Verified” but does not include a signature under penalty of
perjury attesting that its contents are personally known and true.
2 Mr. Bluml states that files were rapidly accessed and “potentially copied to an external
storage drive.” 	ECF No. 1–3 at 4–5. 	He offers no opinion as to whether any confidential
information or trade secrets are currently being used or disclosed, causing irreparable harm.
Case 3:25-cv-02260-MCR-HTC Document 7 Filed 11/14/25 Page 3 of 3