Order | Filed: August 18, 2026
| Entered: August 18, 2026
OTO.Coach, Inc. et al v. Nasedkin et al
Defend Trade Secrets Act (of 2016) | Oregon
Order on Motion to File Document Under Seal
ORDER: The Court is in receipt of plaintiffs' motion to seal certain exhibits, ECF 14 , which is now unopposed, ECF 28 , and defendants' request for an evidentiary hearing, ECF 34 .
With respect to plaintiffs' motion to seal, the Court finds that there are compelling reasons to seal Exhibits 3-4, 9, 12, 14, and 16-20 to plaintiff's preliminary injunction motion because such exhibits contain substantial confidential business information, trade secrets, and financial terms and because public disclosure of such information is likely to harm plaintiffs' competitive standing. Therefore, plaintiffs' motion to seal is GRANTED as to these exhibits. Plaintiffs consent to unsealing the remaining exhibits, so plaintiffs' motion is DENIED as moot to the remaining exhibits. Plaintiffs are ORDERED to file Exhibits 10-11, 13, 15, and 23-28 on the public docket within seven (7) days.
With respect to defendants' motion for an evidentiary hearing, courts in the Ninth Circuit "do not indulge a presumption in favor of evidentiary hearings" and the decision to hear live testimony is a discretionary one. Kenneally v. Lungren, 967 F.2d 329, 334 (9th Cir. 1992). Defendants identify four discrete factual issues that they contend warrant live testimony, but such testimony would likely be time consuming, would require the currently scheduled hearing to be reset a second time, and would not materially advance the Court's resolution of the preliminary injunction motion. Further, this request should have been made when the motion was briefed, rather than waiting five months to reopen the already substantial factual record. Therefore, defendants' request for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED.
Finally, the Court requests that the parties be prepared to address the following questions during the September 2, 2026 hearing: (1) If the Court finds that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their breach of contract claim, is there any reason to reach the trade secrets or tort claims at this time? (2) What are the legal and factual bases for defendants' requested bond of $500,000? (3) Does a claim for conversion/trespass to chattels permit recovery for theft of intellectual property (i.e., confidential information or trade secrets)? If so, what Oregon case law supports such recovery under similar circumstances to this case? (4) Plaintiffs' motion references the return of certain property, but no such return is provided for in plaintiffs' proposed order. What property, if any, do plaintiffs seek the return of, and what is the legal basis to order such a return?
Ordered by Judge Adrienne Nelson. (ccj)