AssuredPartners of California Insurance Services LLC v. Pahl et al

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
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
AssuredPartners of California Insurance
Services LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
Mary Pahl, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-00693-TUC-RM
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 7),
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Conduct Expedited Discovery and for a Scheduling Order
on Motion for Preliminary Injunction (“Motion for Expedited Discovery”) (Doc. 8) and
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Reply in Support of Motion for Scheduling Order
(“Motion for Leave to File Reply”) (Doc. 19). For the following reasons, the Court will
grant the Motion for Expedited Discovery and the Motion for Leave to File Reply, and will
deny without prejudice and with leave to refile the Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
I. Background
On December 15, 2025, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Complaint (Doc. 1)
and paying the associated fees. Plaintiff is a California limited liability company that
provides “insurance products and services to businesses located in Arizona and throughout
the nation.” (Doc. 1 at 5.) Defendant Mary Pahl is a former employee of Plaintiff’s who
resigned from Plaintiff’s employ on November 17, 2025, and who, according to Plaintiff’s
allegations, commenced employment with Liberty Company Insurance Brokers LLC
Case 4:25-cv-00693-RM Document 22 Filed 01/26/26 Page 1 of 9

- 2 -
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
(“Liberty”)—the other Defendant in this action—the same day. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff states
that Liberty “has employees and does business in Arizona” and is a competitor of Plaintiff.
(Id. at 5.)
Plaintiff submits as Exhibit B to its Complaint a document entitled Restrictive
Covenants Agreement (“the Agreement”) signed by Ms. Pahl and a representative of
Plaintiff on August 14, 2023. (Doc. 1-1.) The Agreement states that “Employee shall not
take, copy, duplicate in any way, use, or disclose to any third party, any Confidential
Information for any reason other than as intended within the scope of Employee’s
employment.” (Id. at 5.) This restriction applies to “Confidential Information that is not a
trade secret” for eighteen months after “Employee’s employment with Company ends.”
(Id.) The term “Confidential Information” is defined as “all Trade Secrets and other
information that is proprietary, private, and not generally known or accessible to members
of the public or competitors of Company.” (Id.)
The Agreement further states that for eighteen months after the conclusion of
Employee’s employment, “Employee shall not directly or indirectly . . . solicit, sell,
provide, or renew any Insurance Products or Related Services to any Restricted Client . . .
or service any Insurance Products or Related Services on behalf of any Restricted Client[.]”
(Id. at 5-6.) The term “Restricted Client” is defined as “any client of Employer Group
during the twelve months immediately preceding the date upon which Employee’s
employment with Company ends . . . as to which Employee received any . . . compensation;
or for which Employee had material and ongoing involvement in soliciting, selling,
providing, renewing or servicing any Insurance Products or Related Services; or about
whom Employee received material Confidential Information[.]” (Id. at 6-7.)
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that “mere hours before she sent her resignation
letter” Ms. Pahl used the laptop she had been issued by Plaintiff to access Confidential
Information regarding Restricted Clients, and with that information compiled “certificate
holder lists” for some of these clients. (Doc. 1 at 11.) According to Plaintiff, these lists
contained “information about the insured, their policies, their certificate holders, contact
Case 4:25-cv-00693-RM Document 22 Filed 01/26/26 Page 2 of 9

- 3 -
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
information, and work product of [Plaintiff] not provided to others.” (Id. at 12.) Plaintiff
alleges that Ms. Pahl sent this information to the Restricted Clients despite the fact that the
information had not been requested in an effort to “launder” it, intending to ask the clients
to send the information back to her once she commenced work at Liberty. (Id.)
Plaintiff further alleges that many of the clients Ms. Pahl sent emails to before her
resignation have now informed Plaintiff that they are taking their business to Liberty. (Id.
at 13.) Plaintiff states that Ms. Pahl has accepted the business of these Restricted Clients
“and is now servicing that business at Liberty, in plain violation of the express terms of her
Agreement.” (Id.) Plaintiff submits an image of an email it claims was misdirected to Ms.
Pahl’s former email address at Plaintiff’s company, and which Plaintiff believes provides
confirmation that “Defendant Pahl is personally servicing Restricted Client accounts.” (Id.)
The email identifies Ms. Pahl as an Account Manager at Liberty Company Insurance
Brokers. (Id.) Plaintiff further states that Liberty has helped Ms. Pahl in the enterprise of
“laundering” Confidential Information and proceeding to service the accounts of Restricted
Clients. (Id. at 10.) Plaintiff cites Liberty’s “history of poaching business through
misappropriation of competitors’ trade secrets,” and further cites evidence that “Liberty’s
attorney,” Mr. Louis Shoch, signed Ms. Pahl’s resignation letter. (Id. at 2, Doc. 1-1.)
Plaintiff sets forth in its Complaint seven counts arising from these allegations. (See
Doc. 1.) Count I is a breach of contract claim against Ms. Pahl. (Doc. 1 at 14.) Count II is
a tortious interference with contractual relations claim against Liberty. (Id. at 15.) Count
III is an unjust enrichment claim against Ms. Pahl and Liberty. (Id.) Count IV is a claim
for breach of the duty of loyalty against Ms. Pahl. (Id. at 16.) Count V is a claim for aiding
and abetting a breach of the duty of loyalty against Liberty. (Id. at 17.) Count VI is a claim
for trade secret misappropriation under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act against Ms.
Pahl and Liberty. (Id.) And finally, Count VII is a claim of trade secret misappropriation
under the “Arizona Trade Secrets Act”1 against Ms. Pahl and Liberty. (Id. at 19.)
On December 16, 2025—one day after filing its Complaint—Plaintiff filed a Motion
1 The Court presumes Plaintiff is referring to the Arizona Uniform Trade Secret Act, A.R.S.
§ 44-401, et seq.
Case 4:25-cv-00693-RM Document 22 Filed 01/26/26 Page 3 of 9

- 4 -
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
for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 7) and the present Motion for Expedited Discovery (Doc.
8). In the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Plaintiff requests that Defendants be
restrained from possessing or using Plaintiff’s Confidential Information; be required to
provide forensic verification that they no longer possess Plaintiff’s Confidential
Information; and affirm the same under oath. (Doc. 7 at 6-7.) Plaintiff further requests that
Ms. Pahl be restrained from providing insurance services to the clients deemed off-limits
by the Restrictive Covenants Agreement. (Id.) On December 29, 2025, the Court issued an
Order requiring Defendants to file a response to the Motion for Expedited Discovery on or
before January 8, 2026, and ordering that no reply to the response to the Motion for
Expedited Discovery would be filed absent further Order of the Court. (Doc. 14.) The Court
further stated that it would defer resolution of the Motion for Preliminary Injunction until
after resolution of the Motion for Expedited Discovery. (Id.) On January 8, 2026,
Defendants timely filed their response to the Motion for Expedited Discovery. (Doc. 18.)
In the Motion for Expedited Discovery, Plaintiff argues that good cause for
permitting expedited discovery exists here because Plaintiff has moved for a preliminary
injunction, and Plaintiff’s requested discovery will assist Plaintiff in establishing the
validity of its claims and the proper scope of any injunctive relief. (Doc. 8 at 4.) Plaintiff
further argues that there is “a significant risk of spoliation of evidence in the absence of
expedited discovery” because this matter involves electronically stored information, and
such information is more likely to be “altered or lost.” (Id.) Plaintiff proposes that each
party be permitted to serve up to five interrogatories and requests for production on the
opposition; to serve non-party documentary subpoenas containing up to five requests for
production; to conduct depositions of each party limited to three hours; and to conduct
depositions of relevant non-parties limited to two hours. (Id. at 4-5.) Plaintiff submits five
proposed interrogatories and five proposed requests for production. (Doc. 8-2.) Plaintiff
proposes that the expedited discovery, briefing on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction,
and a hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction all be completed within forty-five
to sixty days. (Doc. 8 at 6.)
Case 4:25-cv-00693-RM Document 22 Filed 01/26/26 Page 4 of 9

- 5 -
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
In their response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Expedited Discovery, Defendants argue
that the Motion for Expedited Discovery violates Local Rule of Civil Procedure (“LRCiv”)
7.2(j), which states that “[n]o discovery motion will be considered or decided unless a
statement of moving counsel is attached thereto certifying that after personal consultation
and sincere efforts to do so, counsel have been unable to satisfactorily resolve the matter.”
Defendants further argue that Plaintiff should be required to identify with particularity the
trade secrets it claims were misappropriated before any discovery may commence. (Doc.
18 at 21.) Defendants also state that Plaintiff has not identified a sufficient need for
expedited discovery, and that in Defendants’ view, Plaintiff’s proposed schedule for
discovery, briefing, and a hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction is overly
compressed and “unworkable.” (Id. at 22-23.) Defendants’ position is that, at most, the
Court should order an expedited conference between the parties pursuant to Rule 26(d)(1).2
On January 14, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File Reply in support of
the Motion for Expedited Discovery. (Doc. 19.) In the Motion for Leave to File Reply,
Plaintiff argues that a reply is justified because Defendants have unfairly mischaracterized
Plaintiff’s efforts to comply with LRCiv 7.2(j),3 and Defendants’ response to the Motion
for Expedited Discovery improperly advances arguments relevant instead to the Motion
for Preliminary Injunction. (Id.) On January 15, 2026, Defendants filed a response to the
Motion for Leave to File Reply, in which they explain that they have no objection to new
legal argument presented in any proposed reply, but “do oppose any attempt by Plaintiff to
submit new evidence” in its reply. (Doc. 20 at 2.) On January 16, 2026, Plaintiff filed a
Notice, attached to which as Exhibit A is a copy of Plaintiff’s proposed reply. (Doc. 21.)
The proposed reply reiterates Plaintiff’s position that expedited discovery is warranted, and
2 Rule 26(d)(1) provides that “[a] party may not seek discovery from any source before the
parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except . . . when authorized . . . by court
order.”
3 Because it is in the interests of justice to consider the Motion for Expedited Discovery on
the merits, the Court will excuse any noncompliance with LRCiv 7.2(j) as it relates to the
Motion for Expedited Discovery. Moreover, the purpose of LRCiv 7.2(j) appears to be to
encourage cooperation between counsel in the context of discovery disputes arising after
discovery has been formally initiated, as opposed to expedited discovery requests in cases
where opposing counsel has not yet appeared at the time the request is filed. In the future,
however, the parties must comply with LRCiv 7.2(j).
Case 4:25-cv-00693-RM Document 22 Filed 01/26/26 Page 5 of 9

- 6 -
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
contains images of additional emails between counsel in an email chain first submitted to
the Court as an exhibit to Defendants’ response to the Motion for Expedited Discovery.
(Doc. 21-1.)
II. Motion for Expedited Discovery
In general, discovery may not commence until after the parties have conferred
pursuant to Rule 26(f). Burch v. HCA Healthcare, Inc., No. 2:25-CV-01408-JAD-MDC,
2025 WL 2772572 at *1 (D. Nev. Sept. 26, 2025). However, a district court may permit
expedited discovery prior to the Rule 26(f) conference upon a showing of good cause. Am.
LegalNet, Inc. v. Davis, 673 F. Supp. 2d 1063, 1066 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (collecting cases).
The good cause standard may be satisfied where a party seeks a preliminary injunction. Id.
(internal citations omitted). Factors considered by district courts in determining the
propriety of expedited discovery include: (1) whether a preliminary injunction is pending;
(2) the purpose for requesting the expedited discovery; (3) how far in advance of the typical
discovery process the request was made; (4) the breadth of the discovery requests; (5) the
burden on the defendants to comply with the requests; and (6) whether the requests are
narrowly tailored to achieve their stated purpose. See id.; see also Perdomo v. Noem, No.
2:25-CV-05605-MEMF-SP, 2025 WL 3053167 at *1 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2025).
Here, a motion for preliminary injunction is pending, and Plaintiff’s stated purpose
for requesting the expedited discovery is to support the motion for preliminary injunction,
two factors which weigh heavily in favor of granting Plaintiff’s request. Although
Plaintiff’s request was made significantly in advance of the typical discovery process, the
breadth of the requests and the burden on Defendants to comply with them is not
disproportionate in light of the value that the proposed discovery will have in establishing
the propriety and scope of any injunctive relief. As such, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s
Motion for Expedited Discovery. In consideration of Defendant’s arguments regarding the
time required to respond to Plaintiff’s proposed discovery requests, however, the Court
will modify Plaintiff’s proposed expedited discovery deadlines as set forth below. Pursuant
to Rule 26(d)(1), the Court will allow the parties to execute expedited discovery prior to
Case 4:25-cv-00693-RM Document 22 Filed 01/26/26 Page 6 of 9

- 7 -
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
conferring under Rule 26(f).
In Defendants’ response to the Motion for Expedited Discovery, Defendants
contend that Plaintiff should be required to identify with particularity the trade secrets it
claims were misappropriated before any discovery may commence. (Doc. 18 at 21.) Since
the Court presently authorizes only limited, expedited discovery of information relevant to
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and because “[d]iscovery in a trade-secret
case requires an ‘iterative process where requests between parties lead to a refined and
sufficiently particularized trade secret identification,’”4 the Court will not at this time order
Plaintiff to more specifically identify the trade secrets that are the subject of some of its
claims.5
III. Motion for Leave to File Reply
As discussed above, Plaintiff seeks leave to file a reply in support of the Motion for
Expedited Discovery because, in Plaintiff’s view, Defendants have not given a fair account
of Plaintiff’s efforts to comply with LRCiv 7.2(j), and Defendants have prematurely
advanced arguments relevant to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction rather than the
Motion for Expedited Discovery. (Doc. 19.) The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Motion for
Leave to File a Reply, and has read and considered the proposed reply submitted by
Plaintiff (Doc. 21-1).
IV. Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Since Plaintiff will likely need to supplement or reformulate its Motion for
Preliminary Injunction as a result of information obtained through the expedited discovery
process, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s currently pending Motion for Preliminary
Injunction (Doc. 7) without prejudice and with leave to refile.
Accordingly,
. . . .
4 Quintara Biosciences, Inc. v. Ruifeng Biztech, Inc., 149 F.4th 1081, 1088 (9th Cir. 2025).
5 Plaintiff has alleged that the spreadsheets compiled by Ms. Pahl and sent to clients prior
to her departure from Plaintiff’s company, which it alleged contained “information about
the insured, their policies, their certificate holders, contact information, and work product
of [Plaintiff] not provided to others” constitute protectable trade secrets. (Doc. 1 at 12.)
Case 4:25-cv-00693-RM Document 22 Filed 01/26/26 Page 7 of 9

- 8 -
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
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 7) is
denied without prejudice and with leave to refile as set forth below.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Reply in
Support of Motion for Scheduling Order (Doc. 19) is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Conduct
Expedited Discovery and for a Scheduling Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction
(Doc. 8) is granted. The following governs expedited discovery and briefing on Plaintiff’s
renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction in the above-captioned matter:
1. Protective Order. The parties shall meet and confer to draft a stipulated
protective order governing the disclosure of confidential information. Any such
stipulated protective order is due on or before January 30, 2026.
2. Written Discovery Requests. Each party is authorized to serve up to five (5)
interrogatories and five (5) requests for production on any other party. Each
party is additionally authorized to serve non-party documentary subpoenas
and/or subpoenas duces tecum containing up to five (5) requests for production.
Written discovery requests shall be served on or before February 2, 2026.
Responses to written discovery requests, as well as responsive documents, shall
be due on or before February 13, 2026.
3. Discovery Disputes. In the event of a dispute over written discovery requests,
the parties must engage in personal consultation regarding the dispute and must
make a sincere effort to resolve the conflict expeditiously. See LRCiv 7.2(j). The
deadline to file a motion regarding any dispute over written discovery requests
is February 20, 2026, with any response due by February 27, 2026, and no
reply permitted absent leave of Court.
4. Depositions. Depositions of parties and any relevant non-parties shall be
completed on or before February 27, 2026. Depositions of parties are limited
to three (3) hours on the record, and depositions of non-parties are limited to
two (2) hours on the record. Taking the deposition of a witness during the
Case 4:25-cv-00693-RM Document 22 Filed 01/26/26 Page 8 of 9

- 9 -
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
expedited discovery period shall not prevent a party from later deposing that
witness in the course of ordinary discovery.
5. Scope of Expedited Discovery. All expedited discovery shall be limited to the
issues relevant to Plaintiff’s forthcoming Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
6. Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff’s renewed Motion for Preliminary
Injunction shall be filed on or before March 11, 2026. Defendant’s response
shall be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date Plaintiff’s renewed Motion
for Preliminary Injunction is filed. Plaintiff’s reply shall be filed within seven
(7) days of the date Defendant’s response is filed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a hearing on Plaintiff’s renewed Motion for
Preliminary Injunction is scheduled for April 8, 2026, at 2:30 p.m., before the Honorable
Rosemary Márquez, in Courtroom 5A of the United States District Court for the District
of Arizona, Evo A. DeConcini U.S. Courthouse, 405 W. Congress Street, Tucson, AZ
85701.
Dated this 26th day of January, 2026.
Case 4:25-cv-00693-RM Document 22 Filed 01/26/26 Page 9 of 9