DANIEL L. HOVLAND, Chief Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the application of Pruco Securities Corporation and The Prudential Insurance Company of America (collectively "Prudential") for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction in aid of arbitration before NASD Dispute Resolution, Inc.
Pursuant to Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in determining whether a temporary restraining order should be issued, the Court must look to the specific facts shown by affidavit(s) to determine whether immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the applicant. And in determining whether preliminary injunctive relief should issue, the Court is required to consider the factors set forth in Dataphase Systems, Inc., v. C.L. Sys. Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir. 1981) ( en banc). The Eighth Circuit summarized those factors as follows:
When considering a motion for a preliminary injunction, a district court weighs the movant's probability of success on the merits, the threat of irreparable harm to the movant absent the injunction, the balance between harm and the injury that the injunction's issuance would inflict on other interested parties, and the public interest. Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. C.L. Sys. Inc.,
640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir. 1981) (
en banc). We reverse the issuance of a preliminary injunction only if the issuance "is the product of an abuse of discretion or misplaced reliance on an erroneous legal premise." City of Timberlake v. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe,
10 F.3d 554, 556 (8th Cir. 1993)
cert. denied
512 U.S. 1236,
114 S.Ct. 2741,
129 L.Ed.2d 861 (1994).
Pottgen v. Missouri State High School Activities Association, 40 F.3d 926, 929 (8th Cir. 1994).
The burden of establishing the necessity of a preliminary injunction is on the movant. Baker v. Electric Co-op, Inc. v. Chaske, 28 F.3d 1466, 1472 (8th Cir. 1994); Modern Computer System, Inc. v. Modern Banking System, Inc., 871 F.2d 734, 737 (8th Cir. 1989) ( en banc). "No single factor in itself is dispositive; in each case all of the factors must be considered to determine whether on balance they weigh towards granting the injunction." Baker Electric Co-op, 28 F.3d 1472 (quoting Calvin Klein Cosmetics Corporation v. Lenox Labs, Inc., 815 F.2d 500, 503 (8th Cir. 1987).
The Court, having carefully considered the Complaint, the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, the accompanying Memorandum of Law, the accompanying Affidavit of Scott Newman, sworn to on May 9, 2003, and the oral arguments of the parties presented at the hearing on May 12, 2003,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Robert Montgomery shall show cause at a hearing to be scheduled at a later date why an injunction should not be entered against him, and those acting in concert and participation with him, including but not limited to the affiliates, directors, officers, employees, and agents of Minnesota Life Insurance Company ("Minnesota Life"), Montgomery's new employer and/or broker/dealer:
1) from doing anything to cause, persuade, induce, or encourage any personnel of Prudential or its affiliates to either terminate his or her affiliation with Prudential or its affiliates, or to sell or solicit services or products on behalf of any other company, including but not limited to Minnesota Life, which are similar to those sold by Prudential or its affiliates;
2) from taking any action to assist Minnesota Life, or any other entity employing or affiliated with Defendant, from soliciting or inducing any personnel of Prudential or its affiliates, or contracting with any personnel of Prudential or its affiliates;
3) from using, disclosing, or transmitting for any purpose any confidential or proprietary information belonging to or concerning Prudential, its customers, employees or businesses, including but not limited to the social security numbers, birth dates, contract renewal dates, and other insurance and investment information pertaining to Prudential clients and products; and
4) requiring Montgomery to immediately return to Prudential all original records or documents, and all copies and transcriptions thereof, pertaining to Prudential's customers, employees and/or businesses, and to purge all documents and information derived therefrom from the possession, custody or control of Montgomery and any person or entity to whom he has given control of, or access to, such information;
IT IS ORDERED that pending a further Order of this Court, Montgomery and all those persons acting in concert or participation with him [see Rule 65(d)]are restrained:
from doing anything to cause, persuade, induce, or encourage any personnel of Prudential or its affiliates to either terminate his or her affiliation with Prudential or its affiliates for any reason, or from doing anything to cause, persuade, induce, or encourage any personnel of Prudential or its affiliates to sell or solicit services or products on behalf of any other company, including but not limited to Minnesota Life, which are similar to those services or products sold by Prudential or its affiliates,
IT IS ORDERED that the parties are granted leave to conduct expedited discovery in aid or defense of this application,
IT IS ORDERED that the requirement for security under Rule 65(c) is waived. In addition, the Clerk of the District Court shall serve all local and out-of-state counsel via facsimile and U.S. mail; and
IT IS ORDERED that a hearing and oral argument on Prudential's application for a preliminary injunction shall be held at a later date to be determined.