Foundation Medicine, Inc. v. Kittle
| Massachusetts District Court | |
| Judge: | Richard G Stearns |
| Case #: | 1:25-cv-10298 |
| Nature of Suit | 190 Contract - Other Contract |
| Cause | 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract |
| Case Filed: | Feb 06, 2025 |
| Terminated: | Apr 25, 2025 |
| Last checked: Sunday Mar 23, 2025 6:17 AM EDT |
|
Defendant
Cameron Kittle
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Foundation Medicine, Inc.
|
Represented By
|
GPO
Feb 20 2025
Judge Richard G. Stearns: ORDER entered granting 6 Motion for TRO; granting 7 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (RGS, law3) |
| Docket last updated: 05/15/2025 11:59 PM EDT |
| Wednesday, May 14, 2025 | ||
| 41 | 41
misc
Stipulation of Dismissal
Wed 05/14 3:30 PM
STIPULATION of Dismissal With Prejudice by Foundation Medicine, Inc.. (Wilson, Dallin) |
|
| Monday, April 28, 2025 | ||
| 40 | 40
appeal
USCA Case Number
Mon 04/28 9:00 AM
USCA Case Number 25-1408 for37 Notice of Appeal, filed by Cameron Kittle. (MAP) |
|
| Friday, April 25, 2025 | ||
| 39 | 39
appeal
Abbreviated Electronic Appeal Record Sent to USCA
Fri 04/25 7:44 PM
Certified and Transmitted Abbreviated Electronic Record on Appeal to US Court of Appeals re37 Notice of Appeal. (MAP) |
|
| 38 | 38
order
Order
Fri 04/25 3:47 PM
Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. This case will be administratively closed pending resolution of the appeal. (JAM) |
|
| 37 | 37
appeal
Notice of Appeal
Fri 04/25 3:04 PM
NOTICE OF APPEAL as to24 Order on Motion for TRO, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 36 Order on Motion for Modification,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, by Cameron Kittle. Filing fee: $ 605, receipt number AMADC-10973310 Fee Status: Not Exempt. NOTICE TO COUNSEL: A Transcript Report/Order Form, which can be downloaded from the First Circuit Court of Appeals web site at [LINK:http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov] MUST be completed and submitted to the Court of Appeals. Counsel shall register for a First Circuit CM/ECF Appellate Filer Account at http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/cmecf. Counsel shall also review the First Circuit requirements for electronic filing by visiting the CM/ECF Information section at http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cmecf. US District Court Clerk to deliver official record to Court of Appeals by 5/15/2025. (Pinkham, Margaret) |
|
| Friday, March 28, 2025 | ||
| 36 | 36
order
Order on Motion for Modification
Fri 03/28 3:34 PM
Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered denying25 Motion for Modification. Kittle moves to vacate the preliminary injunction issued by this court on February 20, 2025, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5). To obtain relief under Rule 60(b)(5), the moving party must show that "it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application and that there has been a significant change in circumstances." Momenta Pharms., Inc. v. Amphastar Pharms., Inc. , 834 F. Supp. 2d 29, 31 (D. Mass. 2011), citing Concilio de Salud Integral de Loiza, Inc. v. Perez-Perdomo , 551 F.3d 10, 16 (1st Cir. 2008). Kittle fails to satisfy either precondition. At the first step, the court disagrees that it would be inequitable to allow the injunction to stand. Any hardship that Kittle is currently experiencing is the natural consequence of his decision to violate a noncompetition agreement into which he voluntarily entered, and he remains free to earn a living by seeking out noncompetitive employment. At the second step, the court is not persuaded that his new employer's revised job description constitutes a significant change in circumstances. Kittle has not transitioned to a fundamentally different role (for example, IT or accounting); he retains the same core job responsibilities that he had before. At best, the revised job description merely formalizes what he previously asserted was already the case in his opposition briefing -- that his work at Foresight was limited to blood cancers. (And as before, the court declines to view the cancer detection market (or even just the MRD market) at the granular level Kittle proposes in assessing whether his role at Foresight is competitive with the work he performed for FMI. FMI's confidential information is not limited to the specific details of its planned MRD product but also presumably would include its assessment of competitor products in the cancer detection (or MRD) market and its view of the best marketing strategy to sell cancer detection (or MRD) products to consumers -- information that remains highly relevant in Kittle's revised role.) Kittle alternatively moves to stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d). "In ruling on a motion for a stay pending appeal, we consider '(1) [w]hether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay, (3) whether [the] issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding, and (4) where the public interest lies.'" Dist. 4 Lodge of the Int'l Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers Loc. Lodge 207 v. Raimondo , 18 F.4th 38, 42 (1st Cir. 2021), quoting Common Cause Rhode Island v. Gorbea , 970 F.3d 11, 14 (1st Cir. 2020. At the outset, the court notes that, because an appeal has not yet been taken, Kittle's Rule 62(d) request is seemingly premature. But even if Kittle were to overcome that procedural hurdle (by, for example, filing an appeal now), the court would still find the requested relief unwarranted because Kittle has not satisfied either of the first two elements (the court need not consider the third and fourth elements where, as here, neither of the first two elements is met). As to likelihood of success on the merits, Kittle focuses solely on the court's irreparable harm finding. But he has not convinced the court that he is likely to succeed in challenging this finding on appeal. Contrary to his suggestion otherwise, the court premised its finding of irreparable harm on something more than the mere fact that he stipulated in his prior contract that breach would cause irreparable harm. And while Kittle argues that the one of the other bases for the court's finding -- inadvertent disclosure -- is erroneous (leaving, in his view, only that one rationale), he does not actually cite a single case standing for the proposition that the inadvertent disclosure doctrine cannot be applied in the confidential information context. See Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Harnett , 731 F.3d 6, 14 (1st Cir. 2013) (declining to decide whether the district court had misapplied the inadvertent disclosure doctrine); Manganaro Ne., LLC v. De La Cruz , 2018 WL 5077180, at *3 n.5 (D. Mass. Aug. 22, 2018) (although holding that "Manganaro has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its claim for breach of contract" because he had not alleged any "use or disclosure of its confidential information that has already occurred," qualifying that determination by noting that, "[b]ecause the Court separately finds that the non-compete clause is unenforceable as against De La Cruz in this dispute, De La Cruz's alleged breach of the non-compete clause cannot serve as already-transpired harm in support of Manganaro's inevitable disclosure argument"). As to irreparable harm, Kittle argues that absent a stay he will not be allowed to work or support his family. But nothing in the court's Order prevents him from earning a living; he remains free to seek out noncompetitive work. It also is not clear to the court how monetary damages would be insufficient to redress any hardship he may face now should he ultimately prevail. See Together Emps. v. Mass Gen. Brigham Inc. , 32 F.4th 82, 86 (1st Cir. 2022) ("Deprivation of income (both in the form of wages and of benefits) is a quintessential pocketbook injury, which money damages can remedy.... Further, 'the fact that an employee may be psychologically troubled by an adverse job action does not usually constitute irreparable injury warranting injunctive relief.'"), quoting DeNovellis v. Shalala , 135 F.3d 58, 64 (1st Cir. 1998). (RGS, law3) |
|
| Thursday, March 27, 2025 | ||
| 35 | 35
respm
Reply to Response to Motion
Thu 03/27 2:20 PM
REPLY to Response to25 MOTION to Modify February 20, 2025 Order filed by Cameron Kittle.(Pinkham, Margaret) |
|
|
Att: 1
Exhibit Unpublished BLS Decision
|
||
| Thursday, March 20, 2025 | ||
| 34 | 34
order
Order on Motion for Leave to File Document
Thu 03/20 1:01 PM
Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting33 Motion for Leave to File Document. Defendant may file a Reply of not more than 10 pages by March 27, 2025. (RGS, law3) |
|
| 33 | 33
1
pgs
motion
Leave to File Document
Thu 03/20 12:53 PM
Assented to MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief by Cameron Kittle.(Busny, Elise) |
|
| Tuesday, March 18, 2025 | ||
| 32 | 32
respm
Opposition to Motion
Tue 03/18 5:43 PM
Opposition re25 MOTION to Modify February 20, 2025 Order filed by Foundation Medicine, Inc..(Mertineit, Dawn) |
|
|
Att: 1
3 pgs
Exhibit A
|
||
| Friday, March 14, 2025 | ||
| 31 | 31
order
Order
Fri 03/14 2:02 PM
Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered - As defendant Cameron Kittle has filed his Answer to the Complaint, the court enters the following pretrial schedule: Initial disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) must be completed by 3/31/25; any additional motions to amend the pleadings and/or joinder of parties should be filed by 5/19/25. Without leave of court, the parties are permitted 30 interrogatories, 30 requests for admissions, and 30 document requests, to be served on the other party (not with the court) within 30 days of initial disclosures (by 4/28/25). The court expects responses to be made in thirty days, unless a request for additional time is granted. The parties may each take up to five depositions without leave of court. If all parties would like to participate in the court's mediation program, they must notify our docket clerk Jacqueline Martin (617-748-4647) by 9/26/25 (or earlier if the parties would like to utilize mediation before incurring the expense of discovery). All fact discovery must be completed no later than 10/10/25. Dispositive Motions are due by 10/31/25, with Oppositions to dispositive motions due 11/21/25. Reply only with leave of court. If a party intends to utilize an expert, they must file a notice on the docket no later than 9/29/25, in order for the court to consider whether the expert is appropriate and, if so, to alter the existing schedule. . (Zierk, Marsha) |
|
| Thursday, March 13, 2025 | ||
| 30 | 30
answer
Answer to Complaint
Thu 03/13 6:25 PM
ANSWER to1 Complaint, with Jury Demand by Cameron Kittle.(Pinkham, Margaret) |
|
| 29 | 29
order
Order on Motion for Extension of Time
Thu 03/13 4:02 PM
Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting28 Motion for Extension of Time. Defendant's answer is due March 14, 2025. (RGS, law3) |
|
| 28 | 28
motion
Extension of Time
Thu 03/13 3:45 PM
Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to March 14, 2025 to Respond to Complaint by Cameron Kittle.(Pinkham, Margaret) |
|
| Tuesday, March 04, 2025 | ||
| 27 | 27
respm
Affidavit in Support of Motion
Tue 03/04 6:13 PM
AFFIDAVIT in Support re25 MOTION to Modify February 20, 2025 Order filed by Cameron Kittle.(Pinkham, Margaret) |
|
|
Att: 1
Exhibit Revised Job Description,
|
||
|
Att: 2
Exhibit Silo Organizational Structure
|
||
| 26 | 26
8
pgs
respm
Memorandum in Support of Motion
Tue 03/04 6:10 PM
MEMORANDUM in Support re25 MOTION to Modify February 20, 2025 Order filed by Cameron Kittle. (Pinkham, Margaret) |
|
| 25 | 25
motion
Modification
Tue 03/04 6:09 PM
MOTION to Modify February 20, 2025 Order by Cameron Kittle.(Pinkham, Margaret) |
|
| Thursday, February 20, 2025 | ||
| 24 | 24
10
pgs
order
Order on Motion for TRO Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Thu 02/20 12:41 PM
Judge Richard G. Stearns: ORDER entered granting6 Motion for TRO; granting7 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (RGS, law3) |
|
| Wednesday, February 19, 2025 | ||
| 23 | 23
minutes
Motion Hearing
Wed 02/19 1:42 PM
Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Richard G. Stearns: Motion Hearing held on 2/19/2025 re6 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Foundation Medicine, Inc.,7 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Foundation Medicine, Inc. Court hears argument from the parties; The court takes the matter under advisement. (Court Reporter: Robert Paschal at rwp.reporter@gmail.com.)(Attorneys present: Wilson, Pinkham) (TRM) |
|
| Tuesday, February 18, 2025 | ||
| 22 | 22
respm
Affidavit in Support of Motion
Tue 02/18 11:57 AM
AFFIDAVIT of Troy Schurr in Support re6 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order ,7 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (In Support of Reply Brief) filed by Foundation Medicine, Inc.. (Mertineit, Dawn) |
|
| 21 | 21
respm
Reply to Response to Motion
Tue 02/18 11:55 AM
REPLY to Response to6 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order ,7 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (leave to file granted 2/14/25) filed by Foundation Medicine, Inc.. (Mertineit, Dawn) |
|
| Friday, February 14, 2025 | ||
| 20 | 20
order
Order on Motion for Leave to File Document
Fri 02/14 2:34 PM
Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting19 Motion for Leave to File Document. Plaintiff may file a Reply of no more than 10 pages by noon on February 18, 2025. The court notes that it will excuse defendant's noncompliance with the Local Rules in this one instance. Defendant is cautioned, however, that should he fail to properly obtain leave of court to file any memorandum of more than 20 pages in the future, the court will consider only the first twenty pages and will treat as stricken any subsequent ones. (RGS, law3) |
|
| 19 | 19
motion
Leave to File Document
Fri 02/14 1:35 PM
MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by Foundation Medicine, Inc..(Mertineit, Dawn) |
|
| Thursday, February 13, 2025 | ||
| 18 | 18
respm
Affidavit in Opposition to Motion
Thu 02/13 5:19 PM
AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re6 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order ,7 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Cameron Kittle. (Pinkham, Margaret) |
|
| 17 | 17
respm
Affidavit in Opposition to Motion
Thu 02/13 5:09 PM
AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re6 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Cameron Kittle.(Pinkham, Margaret) |
|
|
Att: 1
Exhibit,
|
||
|
Att: 2
Exhibit,
|
||
|
Att: 3
Exhibit
|
||
| 16 | 16
respm
Opposition to Motion
Thu 02/13 5:05 PM
Opposition re6 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order ,7 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Cameron Kittle. (Pinkham, Margaret) |
|
| Tuesday, February 11, 2025 | ||
| 15 | 15
notice
Notice Setting or Resetting Hearing on Motion
Tue 02/11 9:47 AM
ELECTRONIC NOTICE Setting Hearing on Motion6 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order : Motion Hearing set for 2/19/2025 10:00 AM in Courtroom 21 (In person only) before Judge Richard G. Stearns. (TRM) |
|
| Saturday, February 08, 2025 | ||
| 14 | 14
order
Order
Sat 02/08 9:59 AM
Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered - Plaintiff Foundation Medicine, Inc. (FMI) asks the court for an emergency temporary restraining order (TRO) to enjoin defendant Cameron Kittle from his current employment at Foresight Diagnostics (FMI claims that Kittle began working for Foresight without FMI's knowledge on January 27, 2025, while still employed by FMI). FMI asserts that Kittle's current employment violates his contractual obligations to FMI under the parties' "restrictive covenants agreement." In anticipation of a hearing on the motion, the court directs Kittle (who has counsel of record) to file a response to FMI's motion for TRO no later than February 13, 2025. (Zierk, Marsha) |
|
| Friday, February 07, 2025 | ||
| 13 | 13
notice
Notice of Case Assignment
Fri 02/07 5:58 PM
ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Reassignment. Judge Richard G. Stearns assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge Jessica D. Hedges. (Danieli, Chris) |
|
| 12 | 12
notice
Notice of Appearance
Fri 02/07 5:36 PM
NOTICE of Appearance by Margaret M. Pinkham on behalf of Cameron Kittle (Pinkham, Margaret) |
|
| 11 | 11
respm
Affidavit in Support of Motion
Fri 02/07 4:42 PM
AFFIDAVIT of Dawn Mertineit in Support re6 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order ,7 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Foundation Medicine, Inc..(Mertineit, Dawn) |
|
|
Att: 1
Exhibit 1,
|
||
|
Att: 2
Exhibit 2
|
||
| 10 | 10
respm
Affidavit in Support of Motion
Fri 02/07 4:41 PM
AFFIDAVIT of Erin Pizzonia in Support re6 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order ,7 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Foundation Medicine, Inc..(Mertineit, Dawn) |
|
|
Att: 1
Exhibit 1,
|
||
|
Att: 2
Exhibit 2,
|
||
|
Att: 3
Exhibit 3
|
||
| 9 | 9
respm
Affidavit in Support of Motion
Fri 02/07 4:40 PM
AFFIDAVIT of Farida Peters-Abbadi in Support re6 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order ,7 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Foundation Medicine, Inc.. (Mertineit, Dawn) |
|
| 8 | 8
22
pgs
respm
Memorandum in Support of Motion
Fri 02/07 4:39 PM
MEMORANDUM in Support re6 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order ,7 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Foundation Medicine, Inc.. (Mertineit, Dawn) |
|
| 7 | 7
motion
Preliminary Injunction
Fri 02/07 4:38 PM
MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Foundation Medicine, Inc..(Mertineit, Dawn) |
|
|
Att: 1
Text of Proposed Order
|
||
| 6 | 6
motion
Temporary Restraining Order
Fri 02/07 4:37 PM
Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Foundation Medicine, Inc..(Mertineit, Dawn) |
|
|
Att: 1
Text of Proposed Order
|
||
| 5 | 5
service
Summons Issued
Fri 02/07 9:42 AM
Summons Issued as to All Defendants. Counsel receiving this notice electronically should download this summons, complete one for each defendant and serve it in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 and LR 4.1. Summons will be mailed to plaintiff(s) not receiving notice electronically for completion of service. (SR) |
|
| 4 | 4
notice
Notice of Case Assignment to a Magistrate Judge
Fri 02/07 9:36 AM
NOTICE of Case Assignment. Magistrate Judge Jessica D. Hedges assigned to case. Plaintiff's counsel, or defendant's counsel if this case was initiated by the filing of a Notice of Removal, are required to submit a form indicating whether the parties consent to proceed before a U.S. Magistrate Judge. The submission of the form is mandatory. Completed forms shall be filed promptly. The parties are directed to the Notice and Procedures regarding Consent to Proceed before the Magistrate Judge which can be downloaded [LINK:here] . These documents will be mailed to counsel not receiving notice electronically. Pursuant to General Order 09-3, until the Court receives for filing either a consent to the Magistrate Judge's jurisdiction or the reassignment of the case to a District Judge, the initial assignment of a civil case to the Magistrate Judge is a referral to the Magistrate Judge under 28 USC 636(b) for all pretrial non-dispositive matters and Report and Recommendations, but not for the Rule 16(b) scheduling conference. (SP) |
|
| Thursday, February 06, 2025 | ||
| 3 | 3
notice
Notice of Appearance
Thu 02/06 6:23 PM
NOTICE of Appearance by Dallin R. Wilson on behalf of Foundation Medicine, Inc. (Wilson, Dallin) |
|
| 2 | 2
misc
Corporate Disclosure Statement
Thu 02/06 6:01 PM
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Foundation Medicine, Inc. identifying Corporate Parent Roche Holdings, Inc. for Foundation Medicine, Inc... (Mertineit, Dawn) |
|
| 1 | 1
28
pgs
cmp
Complaint
Thu 02/06 5:58 PM
COMPLAINT against Cameron Kittle Filing fee: $ 405, receipt number AMADC-10828369 (Fee Status: Filing Fee paid), filed by Foundation Medicine, Inc..(Mertineit, Dawn) |
|
|
Att: 1
Exhibit 1,
|
||
|
Att: 2
Exhibit 2,
|
||
|
Att: 3
Civil Cover Sheet,
|
||
|
Att: 4
Category Form
|
||