The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------------X For Online Publication Only
CORE SWX, LLC,
ORDER
Plaintiff, 21-CV-1697 (JMA)(JMW)
-against-
VITEC GROUP US HOLDINGS, INC and
VITEC PRODUCTION SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------X
VITEC GROUP US HOLDINGS, INC and
VITEC PRODUCTION SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Counterclaim Plaintiffs,
CORE SWX, LLC,
Counterclaim Defendants.
-against-
ROSS KANAREK, and RANDOLPH TODD,
Additional Counterclaim
Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------X
AZRACK, United States District Judge:
Before the Court are objections submitted by Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs Vitec
Group, PLC (“Vitec”), Vitec Group US Holdings, Inc. (“VGUSH”), and Vitec Production
Solutions, Inc. (“VPS”) (together, “Defendants” or “Counterclaim Plaintiffs”) to Magistrate Judge
James M. Wicks’ Report and Recommendation (hereafter “R&R”) recommending that (1)
Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant Core SWX LLC’s (“Core” or “Plaintiff” or “Counterclaim
Defendant”) motion to dismiss Defendants’ federal and state law claims for misappropriation of
trade secrets be granted on the grounds that Defendants failed to plead the existence of a trade
secret; (2) Core’s motion to dismiss Defendants’ federal and state law claims for misappropriation
of trade secrets be granted on the grounds that Defendants failed to plead misappropriation; (3)
Counterclaim Defendants Ross Kanarek and Randolph Todd’s motion to dismiss Defendants’
breach of contract claim be denied; and, (4) Core’s motion to dismiss Defendants’ unjust
enrichment claim be granted. (ECF No. 56.) The R&R further recommends that such dismissal
be without prejudice, and that Defendants be granted leave to amend their counterclaims. (Id.)
Defendants filed timely objections to the R&R, (ECF No. 57), and Core, Kanarek, and
Todd timely responded to Defendants’ objections. (ECF No. 60.) After conducting a review of
the full record (including the motion papers, R&R, and objections), and applicable law, the Court
adopts Magistrate Judge Wicks’ R&R in its entirety as the opinion of the Court.
In reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation on a dispositive motion, a
court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or . . . recommendations
to which objection[s] [are] made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Brown v. Ebert, No. 5-CV-
---------------
5579, 2006 WL 3851152, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2006). Even for dispositive motions, the
portions of a report and recommendation to which there is no specific reasoned objection are
reviewed for clear error. See Pall Corp. v. Entegris, Inc., 249 F.R.D. 48, 51 (E.D.N.Y. 2008).
The Court finds no clear error in the portions of Magistrate Judge Wicks’ R&R to which
there are no objections. Next, the Court turns to the portions of the R&R to which Defendants
have objected. Defendants insist that, inter alia, their counterclaim sufficiently states federal and
state law claims for misappropriation of trade secrets. Regarding Defendants’ objections to those
portions of the R&R, the Court has undertaken a de novo review of the full record and the
applicable law, and the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Wicks’ R&R.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court affirms and adopts the well-reasoned R&R in its
entirety as the opinion of the Court. Core’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED; Counterclaim
Defendants Ross Kanarek and Randolph Todd’s motion to dismiss is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 15, 2022
Central Islip, New York
/s/ (JMA)
JOAN M. AZRACK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE