5 Attorneys for Petitioner Superior 23 24 25 26 27 28 CARLE, WCKIE, LLP DAWN A. LOVEMAN CARLE, MACKIE, POWER Ross 100 Street, Suite 400 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Telephone: Facsimile: (707) 526-4707 M. ROSS (143028) (707) 526-4200 Court, County of Tehama 300512103 000st orcAUthA JUL i3 2015 OFTEHNA. owit evens emotiijmowmc. CLERK OF THE 000m 3., CJK 02am! SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, MARK D. MONTALVO, Defendant. COUNTY OF TEHAMA CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT, COUNTY OF TEI-IAMA, I. INTRODUCTION Defendant Mark Montalvo was the Court ofthe State of Californi CaseNo. 70?13; EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RES ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE ISSUANCE OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Date: July 10, 2015 Time: 4:00 PM Dept: 6 Director of Information Technology for the Superior a, County of Teharna until June 26, 2015, when employment was terminated. As Director of IT, Defendant possessed critical passwords and had access to all of the Court?s essential IT systems, including its email, phone, calendaring, CMC, jury systems. When Defendant left the Court? 3 employ, he provided the Court with incorrect password information for critical passwords. When Defendant failed to provide the correct passwords Plaintiff sent Defendant two letters demanding return of the critical IT codes, and explaining that Cahforma Penal Code section 502 prohibits computer crimes and various forms of unauthorized . . . . efendant failed to return the critical passwords and sabotaged the Court?s computer syste m. July 9, 2015, while investigating the source of the Court?s computer system problems the Court I EX PA RTE APPLICATION FOR TRO AND OSC RE: PRELINIINARY CARLE, Mamas, POWER Ross LLP determined that on July 3, 2015 at 1:58 pm, someone had logged into the Administrator account, controlled by Defendant, and deleted two hard drives containing all of the Court?s infrastructure for Tehama County, and had emptied it ?om the trash bin. At this point, the Court?s CMC system is non-Operational, it?s phone system is non? operational, it?s email system is non-operational, along with its jury summons system and other critical court systems. The Court has already spent over One Hundred Thousand dollars hiring professionals to try to restore its system, but does not yet know if that?s possible. As a result, the Court cannot conduct any of the vital services it performs on a daily basis. Indeed, Defendant?s refusal to turn over these critical passwords and his retaliatory conduct has completely shut down the Court?s business and has placed the Court in a very dire situation, including the possibility of dismissing several criminal actions for failure to being able to hold ajury trial within the required time period. Accordingly, Plaintiff requests a Temporary Restraining Order by which Defendant is required to immediately (1) cease and desist from taking any further action to disrupt or interfere with Defendant?s business in general and in particular, its IT and computer systems; (2) turn over to Plaintiff all of the Court?s proprietary passwords; and (3) turn over to Plaintiff all of the Court?s personal and intellectual property that Defendant has in his possession, custody and/or control. Plaintiff will be irreparany injured if this relief is not granted immediately because it will not be able to conduct the day-to-day business of the Court; there is no harm to the public interest by granting this request and to the contrary, it is in the public interest that this be granted so the services of the Court can resume forthwith; there will be no harm to Defendant by granting this request; and Plaintiff has a high likelihood of prevailing on the merits. Accordingly, the requested TRO and OSC Re: Preliminary Injunction should be granted. Plaintiff has not given Defendant notice of this ex part-e request for a TRO because Plaintiff believes that noti?cation to Defendant would lead to irreparable injury, including the permanent destruction of Plaintiff IT property. (See, Code Civ. Proc. see also, Cal. Rule Court 2 EX PART APPLICATION FOR TRO AND OSC RE: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 28 CABLE, MACKIE, POWER LLP II. LEGAL ANALYSIS The purpose of a TRO is to preserve the status quo pending resolution on the merits of the case. (Continental Baking Co. v. Karz (1968) 68 Cal.2d 512, 528.) In order to get a TRO, ?the moving party must show all the following: (1) irreparable injury to the moving party Without the (2) no harm to the public interest; (3) no substantial harm to the other interested parties; and (4) a likelihood of prevailing on the merits. (Sarale v. Paci?c Gas Electric Co. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 225, 243?245.) In this case, Plaintiff satis?es all of these elements and therefore, the TRO and OSC should be granted. To start, Plaintiff is, and will continue to be irreparany harmed if the TRO is not granted. As stated above, in retaliation for Defendant?s termination as Director of the IT Department for the Tehama County Court, Defendant has refused to turn over two essential passwords for the Court?s computer systems and has externally accessed the Court?s computer system and sabotaged the Court by deleting two hard drives containing all of the Court?s infra- structure. As a result, the Court has lost its Case Management System, and cannot make phone calls, send emails, or conduct any of the vital services it performs on a daily basis, including serving jury summons. Defendant?s refusal to return the Court?s critical passwords, and his retaliatory conduct has completely shut down the Court?s business and has placed the Court in a very dire situation, including the possibility of dismissing several criminal actions for failure to hold ajury trial within the required time period. Accordingly, Plaintiff is presently suffering irreparable injury and will continue to incur irreparable injury until this relief is granted. Additionally, there is no harm to the public interest by granting this request and to the contrary, the public interest will be best served if this relief is granted so that the Court?s business can continue as soon as possible. Furthermore, there will be no substantial harm to any other interested party because Defendant has been terminated and has no rights to these passwords and no right to access the Court?s IT System. Finally, based on these facts, there is a high likelihood that Plaintiff will prevail on the merits. For all these reasons, Plaintiff ex parte application should be granted and the TRO and OSC should be granted. 3 EX PA RTE APPLICATION FOR TRO AND OSC RE: PRELIMINARY INIUNCTION CARLE, MACKIE, POWER &Ross REQUESTED RELIEF Plaintiff requests the following immediate relief: (1) action to disrupt or interfere with Plaintiff 3 business in general and its IT and computer systems in an order by which defendant is ordered cease and desist from taking any ?irther particular; (2) an order by which Defendant is ordered to turn over to Plaintiff all passwords in his possession, custody and/or control; and (3) an order by which Defendant is ordered to turn over to Plaintiff all of the Court?s personal and intellectual property that Defendant has in his possession, custody and/0r control, including but not limited to any hardware, software, back-ups, and electronically stored information; and (4) electronic, computer, or other property belonging to Plaintiff which is currently in Defendant?s an order by which Defendant is ordered not to alter or destroy any intellectual, possession, custody and/or control. IV. NOTICE As stated above, Plaintiff has not given Defendant of this exparfe request for a TRO and OSC to Defendant because Plaintiff believes that noti?cation to Defendant would lead to irreparable injury, including the permanent destruction of Plaintiff?s IT property. (See, Code Civ. Proc. see also, Cal. Rule Court V. CONCLUSION Plaintiff has acted with all haste and speed to stop the incredible damage that Defendant is causing people of Tehama County and the Court?s ability to administerjustice. Defendant?s actions are intentional, malicious and without any legal justi?cation. Emergency injunctive relief is proper under these circumstances. Dated: July 10, 2015 CARLE, MACKIE, POWER ROSS LLP . .- DAWN M. ROSS Attorneys for Plaintiff 4 EX PA TE APPLICATION FOR TRO AND OSC RE: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION