KLA-Tencor Corp. v. Murphy

Good Law
717 F. Supp. 2d 895·2010 WL 1912029·2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45932
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMay 11, 2010C-09-01922 RMWCalifornia5,617 words

Opinion

Opinion

Whyte, J.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY

Plaintiff KLA-Tencor Corp. (“KT” or the “company”) bought this action against individual defendants Brian Murphy, Renwick Thompson, Peter Hooper, and Ruixia Chen, and corporate defendant InspecStar, LLC (“InspecStar”) for alleged trade secret misappropriation and destruction of KT’s confidential information. Since plaintiff filed the present motion, it has reached settlement with three of the defendants, Murphy, Thompson, and Hooper, and dismissed them from the case. With respect to the remaining defendants Chen and InspecStar, plaintiff moves for partial summary judgment on Counts One, Two, Three, and Eight of the complaint. Defendants oppose the motion. In addition, defendant InspecStar requests a stay of proceedings. Argument was heard on the motion on November 20, 2009. The court has read the moving and responding papers and considered the arguments of counsel. For the reasons set forth below, the court denies without prejudice plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment and denies InspecStar’ request for a stay.

I. BACKGROUND

This case arises out of conduct by former…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.