OTX alleged that Goetz and Rachel Parness, who ran the firm’s screenings and qualitative division before leaving to form Screen Engine, used “confidential and proprietary” information to set up the new movie research company.

It was also alleged that Goetz had broken terms of his employment contract that prohibited him from competing with OTX and had tried to lure key staff to Screen Engine.

In his defence, Goetz’s legal team argued that OTX could “not meet the burden of irreparable harm, immediate danger or any statutory basis for granting relief ex parte” as required by California state laws, and that he and Parness had not used any of OTX’s confidential information.

Furthermore, defence attorney Gary Nevers, said OTX “nowhere alleges what its trade secret, confidential or proprietary information is, or could be”.

After the request for a temporary restraining order was rejected, Goetz said: “I am grateful the court took the time to consider this matter carefully. As a result of the decision, I feel so vindicated. Screen Engine will continue focusing solely on responding to the needs of its clients.”

In a separate statement Screen Engine said: “OTX and Screen Engine are discussing a stipulation concerning use of normative data that OTX Corporation contends was obtained from OTX, and that OTX contends is confidential and proprietary to its business.”

UPDATE 1/04/10: Representatives of OTX have been in touch, asking us to make clear that while a temporary restraining order was not granted, the court granted an injunction preventing the Screen Engine defendants from using proprietary OTX information. This includes the normative data mentioned above.