At Inman Connect Las Vegas, July 30-Aug. 1, 2024, the noise and misinformation will be banished, all your big questions will be answered, and new business opportunities will be revealed. Join us.
The theft of trade secrets lawsuit between Move and CoStar Group has taken another turn.
On Tuesday, CoStar revealed it placed former Realtor.com News & Insights editor James Kaminsky on administrative leave “out of an abundance of caution” as both portals battle over Move’s July 19 request that CoStar relinquish Move-owned files and any electronic devices Kaminsky used after moving to CoStar Group in January.
“Mr. Kaminsky does not have any strategic role or input at CoStar beyond the localized content he and his team are generating regarding the New York condominium market,” court documents read. “CoStar has a wholly separate residential real estate data and information team, which is run by a different editor.”
“Out of an abundance of caution, CoStar has also placed Mr. Kaminsky on administrative leave through the continued hearing date so that he can focus on the defense of this case and to further eliminate any credible claim of imminent or irreparable harm during any continuance the Court may grant,” it added.
CoStar’s decision came as Move petitioned the court with an ex-parte request (i.e., the expedition of an order without giving the other party time to oppose) for an Order of Protection preventing the disclosure of confidential and trade secret information during the discovery process. Especially sensitive documents, they said, should only be available to Move’s counsel and CoStar Group’s outside counsel.
Move said the expedited approval is critical to preventing the “further [misappropriation]” of confidential information in the suit, as they fear additional competitive harm beyond Kaminsky’s alleged use of 37 Move-owned files from January to June.
“Move naturally needs a Confidentiality Protective Order that prevents Mr. Kaminsky from seeing Move’s confidential documents yet again, in the context of this litigation,” Move’s filing read. “In addition, if Move were to disclose its trade secrets to Defendants, unredacted, without a protective order in place, that could constitute a failure of Move’s obligation to take reasonable measures to maintain the secrecy of those trade secrets.”
CoStar answered Move’s expedited Order of Protection request with a filing requesting expedited discovery and the rescheduling of the preliminary injunction hearing from Aug. 15 to Sept. 19.
In their filing, CoStar’s counsel said the expedited discovery would allow both parties to access unredacted versions of previous filings and accompanying exhibits so each side can submit a “more fulsome briefing” ahead of the preliminary injunction hearing. They also said that now that Kaminsky is on administrative leave, there shouldn’t be any concern about providing unredacted files during the discovery process.
“Move has flatly rejected Defendants’ proposal to allow for such discovery even though it asked for certain expedited discovery as part of its [preliminary injunction] Motion,” the filing read. “It is telling that Move shows no interest in quickly discovering, in advance of the preliminary injunction hearing, the truth regarding the Defendants’ alleged conduct, and is unwilling to reveal the facts about its own investigation, the timing thereof, the supposed trade secret nature of the documents at issue, and Move’s basis for claiming that such documents were used to compete against it.”
In an emailed statement to Inman, CoStar Group General Counsel Gene Boxer once again called Move’s lawsuit a “PR stunt” while questioning Move’s legal strategy.
“Move took a month to file a complaint without ever approaching CoStar, and six weeks to seek an injunction,” he said. “It has offered not a single fact in support of its core claim that CoStar used Move’s information to compete against Move. And now—stunningly—it is trying to block early discovery and a brief extension of the preliminary injunction hearing to allow for such discovery.”
“Any company with a real trade secret concern wants to uncover the facts, and fast. Move is instead trying to hide the truth,” he added. “Its request for the Court to enter an overly restrictive protective order is more of the same. Move’s efforts to conceal the truth speaks volumes. By contrast, CoStar is seeking discovery, including about Move’s delays, and is doing so on the fastest possible track.”
He continued, “We call upon Move to drop its opposition and let the truth be known. What is Move scared of?… They have not a shred of evidence to support [their claims]. The press should be asking Move a direct question: ‘What’s your proof that CoStar used Move’s trade secrets to compete against Move?'”
A Realtor.com spokesperson said the company “doesn’t comment on pending litigation,” however they addressed Move’s claims that the suit is a stunt.
“We also don’t take action like this frivolously and have only had one similar case in the last decade,” they told Inman in an emailed statement. “We’re confident in the merits of our action, and out of respect for the judicial system, we will litigate in the courts, not the media.”
These filings are the latest chapter in Move and CoStar Group’s battle over which residential portal can rightfully claim the second-place spot during a pivotal point in a years-long portal war.
Both companies have publicly battled over traffic claims, with Move putting pressure on CoStar throughout July through an advertising challenge with the Better Business Bureau National Programs’ National Advertising Division, which recommended that CoStar stop using “Homes.com just reached 156M monthly unique visitors” and “Homes.com now has DOUBLE Realtor.com’s traffic” in its ads as both claims are based on traffic for the Homes.com Network.
CoStar Group acquiesced to NAD’s recommendations, with recent advertising highlighting Homes.com’s 100 million monthly unique visitors. The company can still highlight traffic numbers for the Homes.com Network if they “explicitly disclose it in the body of its advertisements.”
There’s no specific timeline on when the judge will answer CoStar and Move’s ex-parte requests.
Read both ex-parte requests below.
