Notice | Filed: August 28, 2026
| Entered: August 28, 2026
Maxava LLC v. MacDonald et al
Defend Trade Secrets Act (of 2016) | Connecticut
Notice
NOTNOTICE. The court thanks Plaintiff for its notice stating that it has (thrice) served the second amended complaint upon Defendant M81 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 5, with the explanation that "[a]fter service is effectuated under Rule 4, the service of all subsequent pleadings, including amended complaints, is governed by Rule 5...." ECF No. 192 at 2. The court would add that Rule 5(a)(2) provides, "[A] pleading that asserts a new claim for relief against [a defaulted] party must be served on that party under Rule 4." To be clear, Plaintiff also notes that M81 responded to the first amended complaint through then-retained counsel, without claiming improper service, such that Plaintiff believes any related defense should be deemed waived, presumably as to service of the second amended complaint, as well. At this stage, the court takes no position as to the validity of service and does not yet assess Plaintiff's compliance with ECF No. 185, other than to add detail to the landscape of rules governing service as cited by Plaintiff at ECF No. 192. (RW)
Order | Filed: August 26, 2026
| Entered: August 26, 2026
Maxava LLC v. MacDonald et al
Defend Trade Secrets Act (of 2016) | Connecticut
Order on Motion for Contempt Order on Motion to Compel
ORDER denying 181 Motion for Contempt; granting 181 Motion to Compel Completion of Forensic Examination. On June 15, 2026, the plaintiff filed a motion for contempt and to compel the defendant M81's immediate compliance with the Court's (Williams, J.) February 10, 2026 order granting the parties' 142 Joint Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Doc. No. 145). On February 19, 2026, the defendant M81's counsel filed a 147 Motion to Withdraw from their representation of M81, and the defendant has remained unrepresented following the grant of that motion. On August 25, 2026, the undersigned held a status conference on the plaintiff's pending 181 MOTION for Contempt, MOTION to Compel, which defendant M81 received notice of, but did not attend.
The Court's order granting the parties' 142 Joint Motion for Preliminary Injunction clearly directs all defendants, including M81, to submit to the agreed upon forensic examination of all "devices, accounts, platforms, networks, and systems" by an agreed upon third-party vendor, NGH Group. Whereas all other defendants have complied with the order, the defendant M81 has repudiated its obligation. (Doc. No. 145). As required, the plaintiff filed its 181 Motion to Compel to obtain the defendant M81's compliance with ongoing discovery. This Court accordingly GRANTS the plaintiff's 181 Motion to Compel Completion of Forensic Examination in accordance with the Court's prior order. (Doc. No. 145). The third-party vendor, NGH Group, should complete the forensic examination of the relevant information on or before September 25, 2026.
The undersigned also orders monetary sanctions in the amount of $5,000 in attorney's fees to be awarded to the plaintiff pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(a), which provides that if a motion to compel is granted, or if the requested discovery is provided after the motion was final, the Court must require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant's reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney's fees. Here, according to the affidavit submitted with the 181 Motion for Contempt, the plaintiff has spent approximately $13,000 in attorney's fees addressing M81's non-compliance with the Court's February 10, 2026 order. (Doc. No. 145). The $5,000 in fees sought represents only a small portion of the total fees expended and is certainly a reasonable amount to compensate the plaintiff for the attorney's fees expended to achieve compliance.
However, the Court declines to find M81 in civil contempt due to the short timeframe between the Court's February 10, 2026 order granting the parties' 142 Joint Motion for Preliminary Injunction and the February 19, 2026 147 withdrawal of defendant M81's counsel and the fact that no new counsel has entered an appearance for M81 since that time. (Doc. No. 145). Moreover, the Court's February 10, 2026 order explicitly provides for a situation in which one party causes the costs of the forensic examination to increase dramatically as a result of its conduct. (Doc. No. 145). This Court accordingly DENIES the plaintiff's 181 Motion for... (truncated)