# Solar Connect v. Endicott: When a Court Grants a DTSA Civil Seizure

> A Utah federal court granted a rare DTSA ex parte seizure, persuaded by defendants who deleted data, used false identities, and would evade an ordinary order.

Topic: Trade Secrets  |  Author: Lidiia Levitska  |  Source: Intellectual Property Law (outsideipcounsel.com)
Canonical: https://outsideipcounsel.com/blog/solar-connect-v-endicott-dtsa-seizure-granted/


*Solar Connect, LLC v. Endicott*, No. 2:17-cv-01235 (D. Utah 2017), is one of the rare reported cases in which a federal court actually granted an ex parte civil seizure under the Defend Trade Secrets Act. When Congress enacted the DTSA in 2016, its most novel and controversial feature was 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(2), which lets a trade-secret owner obtain, without notice to the defendant, a court order directing law enforcement to seize property in order to prevent trade secrets from being propagated or disseminated. Courts have used the remedy sparingly, usually preferring a temporary restraining order. In *Solar Connect*, the United States District Court for the District of Utah found the extraordinary-circumstances threshold satisfied, persuaded by defendants who had deleted data, used false identities, and shown they would evade an ordinary order. The decision is a clear anatomy of the evidence that moves a court to seize.

## At a glance

- **Case:** *Solar Connect, LLC v. Endicott*, No. 2:17-cv-01235, 2017 WL 11309521 (D. Utah Dec. 4, 2017), amended and superseded, 2018 WL 8786166 (D. Utah Feb. 16, 2018), amended and superseded, 2018 WL 2386066 (D. Utah Apr. 6, 2018)
- **Court:** U.S. District Court for the District of Utah
- **Decided:** seizure order entered December 4, 2017, then amended and superseded twice, most recently April 6, 2018
- **Holding:** The court granted a DTSA ex parte seizure of computer files, finding the defendants' technical sophistication, history of deleting data, and use of false and misleading identities showed they would evade or disobey an ordinary equitable order, satisfying the statute's extraordinary-circumstances requirement. The order was narrow: it authorized imaging of computer files under limited and controlled circumstances rather than the carting away of hardware.
- **Significance:** One of the few published examples of a granted DTSA civil seizure, illustrating the concrete evidence of evasion and bad faith courts require before ordering the remedy.

## The doctrinal frame: seizure as a last resort

The DTSA's seizure provision is deliberately narrow. Section 1836(b)(2) authorizes a court to order seizure only in extraordinary circumstances and only on a detailed set of findings. Among other things, the applicant must show that an order under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, would be inadequate because the party against whom seizure is ordered would evade, avoid, or otherwise not comply with such an order. The applicant must also show immediate and irreparable injury, that the harm to the applicant outweighs the harm to the target, a likelihood of success, that the target has actual possession of the trade secret and property to be seized, and that the target would destroy, move, hide, or otherwise make the material inaccessible if given notice.

Those requirements set a high bar by design. Congress feared that seizure could be weaponized by competitors to raid a rival's premises, so it hedged the remedy with findings and safeguards, including a required hearing, a bond, and provisions for the wrongfully seized party to recover damages. The practical effect is that most trade-secret plaintiffs who ask for seizure are steered toward a TRO instead. A granted seizure signals that the record contained something unusual.

## The facts: deletion, false identities, and evasion

The dispute arose in the solar-sales industry, with Solar Connect alleging that the defendants had taken and were using its proprietary materials. What distinguished the case was the character of the defendants' conduct as the court described it. The defendants possessed a high level of computer and technical proficiency, the kind of skill that makes concealing or destroying digital evidence easy. They had, in the past, attempted to delete data and information from computers. And they had shown a willingness to provide false and misleading information, including false information used to conceal their identities, and to hide information and move computer files rather than comply with requests to stop using the plaintiff's proprietary materials.

Each of those facts maps directly onto the statutory findings. Technical sophistication plus a demonstrated habit of deleting data speaks to the risk that evidence will be destroyed if notice is given. The use of false identities and misleading information speaks to the likelihood that the defendants would evade or disobey an ordinary court order. Prior refusals to comply with informal demands reinforced the conclusion that a TRO would be a paper tiger against these particular defendants.

## The court's reasoning: why a Rule 65 order would fail

The heart of the analysis is the inadequacy of ordinary relief. A temporary restraining order works by commanding a defendant to preserve the status quo and by relying on the defendant's compliance backed by the threat of contempt. That mechanism assumes a defendant who can be located and who will obey. Where the record shows a defendant who conceals his identity, provides false information, and has already deleted data to frustrate detection, the court could reasonably conclude that a mere command would not protect the secrets. The defendants had signaled, through their conduct, that they would treat an injunction as an invitation to destroy or move the very files at issue.

On that reasoning, the court granted the seizure. It is worth being precise about what that meant, because the label "seizure" conjures more than the order actually authorized. The court limited the remedy to imaging of the computer files under limited and controlled circumstances, providing that "[n]o physical property, such as computers, tablet computers, smartphones or documents, will be seized, other than for the period required to image the computers and computer devices, including copying of files from any associated networks." The defendants' hardware stayed with the defendants; what was captured was a forensic copy, taken before they could delete or move the files. The order thus rested not on the strength of Solar Connect's trade-secret claim alone, which the statute requires but which is common to any trade-secret suit, but on the specific, evidence-backed finding that these defendants would not comply with anything less. That is the pivot on which DTSA seizures turn.

## Open questions

*Solar Connect* shows what persuades a court to seize, but it does not resolve how much evasion evidence is enough, and reasonable judges could differ on where the line falls between a defendant who merely might disobey and one who demonstrably will. The case also leaves open how courts should handle the aftermath: the DTSA requires safeguards, a seizure hearing, secure custody of seized material, and damages for wrongful seizure, and the reported treatment of *Solar Connect* focuses on the grant rather than the downstream administration of those protections. More broadly, because granted seizures remain rare, the body of law defining extraordinary circumstances is thin, and practitioners still calibrate largely from a handful of decisions like this one and the contrasting cases where courts denied seizure and ordered a TRO instead. Whether the remedy will see wider use or remain a narrow tool for the most egregious bad-faith defendants is still unsettled as of July 2026.

## Implications for inventors and businesses

- **For trade-secret owners:** Seizure is winnable, but only on evidence of evasion. Document the defendant's technical sophistication, any history of deleting data, and any use of false identities, because those facts, not the merits alone, unlock the remedy.
- **For applicants weighing seizure versus a TRO:** Ask honestly whether an ordinary order would be obeyed. If the defendant is locatable and likely to comply, courts will steer you to Rule 65; reserve seizure for defendants who have shown they will not.
- **For defendants and their counsel:** Conduct matters. Deleting data, concealing identities, or ignoring cease demands can convert a routine trade-secret suit into one where law enforcement arrives without warning to image your machines, and can supply the very findings the seizure statute requires.
- **For litigators generally:** Prepare for the safeguards. A seizure comes with a required hearing, a bond, secure custody, and wrongful-seizure liability, so build the record and the logistics before you ask.

## Frequently asked questions

**What is a DTSA ex parte seizure?** Under 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(2), the Defend Trade Secrets Act lets a trade-secret owner ask a court, without notifying the defendant, to order federal marshals to seize property necessary to prevent the propagation or dissemination of the trade secret. It is an extraordinary remedy reserved for cases where an ordinary injunction would be inadequate.

**Why did the court grant seizure in Solar Connect v. Endicott?** The court found the defendants had a high level of technical proficiency, had previously deleted data from computers, and had used false identities and misleading information to conceal themselves. Those facts showed they would likely evade or disobey an ordinary Rule 65 order, which is the core statutory requirement for civil seizure.

**Are DTSA seizures common?** No. Civil seizures under the DTSA are rare because the statute requires extraordinary circumstances and a showing that lesser remedies like a temporary restraining order would not work. Solar Connect is notable precisely because it is one of the few reported cases where a court granted the seizure rather than ordering a TRO instead.

## Authorities and sources

- 18 U.S.C. § 1836 (DTSA civil remedies, including the § 1836(b)(2) civil seizure provision): [Cornell Legal Information Institute](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1836).
- The Sedona Conference, [Commentary on Equitable Remedies in Trade Secret Litigation, 23 Sedona Conf. J. 591 (2022)](https://www.thesedonaconference.org/sites/default/files/publications/7-2-Equitable%20Remedies%20in%20Trade%20Secret%20Litigation.pdf) (collecting the *Solar Connect* orders at note 42).
- Fisher Phillips, [The DTSA's Ex Parte Seizure Remedy: Two Years Later](https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/employment-litigation-tribunals/727486/the-dtsa39s-ex-parte-seizure-remedy-two-years-later) (republished on Mondaq).
- IPWatchdog, [Ex Parte Seizures Five Years After the Enactment of the Defend Trade Secrets Act](https://ipwatchdog.com/2021/03/26/ex-parte-seizures-five-years-enactment-defend-trade-secrets-act/id=131486/).