In new court legal briefs concerning the data-theft case, Move, Inc. and CoStar Group, the parent companies of Realtor.com and Home.com urged the judge to take their side regarding the timing of expedited discovery and other matters
The latest back and forths came via CoStar’s supplemental memo on Aug. 7 to the U.S. District Court in California, denying claims made by Move in its own recent memorandum on Aug. 6, which in turn followed a joint filing disputing specific elements of CoStar’s Aug. 5 request for accelerated discovery in the case. Days earlier, CoStar had been granted expedited discovery by the judge.
The last three filings have centered around the timing of the expedited discovery. The sides are posturing, with various assertions including that one side is not taking the case seriously, the other is playing to the media, etc. Including insults and sarcasm within the filings have given Judge George H. Wu much to sort out.
In the newest filing, CoStar wrote that “Defendants diligently attempted to ‘initially meet and confer and discuss the issues of what discovery would be requested, and . . . limitations in terms of the number.’ Move, on the other hand, refused to engage and transformed what should have been a straightforward stipulation on the scope of discovery into more than 60 pages of briefing re-litigating the Court’s ruling.
“Contrary to Move’s representation that it wants to ‘cut to the chase,’” CoStar continued. “Move spills another five pages of ink seeking reconsideration of the Court’s order granting expedited discovery, and arguing about the scope of that discovery.”
The day before, in its own filing, Move wrote that “defendants went out of their way to argue about Move’s supposed intentions. Defendants claim baselessly that Move is making an ‘effort to avoid the consequences of its own motion,’ that Move ‘does not want to know the facts and that Move has its head in the sand,’ among other deflections.
“Defendants suggest that because Move is not taking discovery at this expedited phase—which Move has consistently argued is unnecessary—it must mean that Move wants this case to ‘go away.’ Nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, Defendants’ argument makes no sense. If Move wanted this case to end, it would dismiss. Move does not want this case to go away because it needs–and is entitled to–a preliminary injunction.”
The injunction refers to Move’s reason for the lawsuit, which is that former employee James Kaminsky accessed proprietary information while working at CoStar. While the two portal giants dispute the value of such information, Move is seeking to limit CoStar’s further usage of it.
“The requested preliminary injunction only seeks to stop further disclosure or use of specifically identified confidential files, which Move has already proven Mr. Kaminsky unlawfully acquired and accessed while working for CoStar—facts that CoStar’s employee Mr. Kaminsky admitted in his recent sworn declaration filed with the Court,” wrote Move.
Before that filing, the Aug. 5 court document with both sides pressing for gains, included multiple back and forths scolding each other.
Kaminsky and CoStar have characterized the former Realtor.com editorial staffer as a mid-level employee at Homes.com, which he joined after he was laid off by Realtor.com in January. The documents he accessed were used to help him in a job search, and to build his portfolio, they assert.
