Excerpts from an order issued May 19 by Tarrant County District Court Judge Megan Fahey, in CTC Property LLC v. Shulgin:
On August 15, 2025, this Court entered a Temporary Injunction Order enjoining Mr. Shulgin from using, uploading, disclosing, or transferring CTC Confidential Information—defined as photographs or videos of, or other information describing, the construction or design of any of CTC’s artificial-intelligence data facilities—and ordering him to submit his devices for forensic imaging….
The Court finds that CTC will suffer ongoing, irreparable harm as long as CTC Confidential Information remains publicly accessible on the internet, as such disclosure deprives CTC of a competitive advantage regarding the construction of its artificial-intelligence data facilities, for which no adequate remedy at law exists.
Based on the foregoing findings, IT IS ORDERED that any and all photographs, videos, or other CTC Confidential Information posted by or at the direction of Defendant to Google Maps, or to any other publicly accessible internet platform, shall be removed. Plaintiff CTC Property LLC is authorized to serve a certified copy of this Order on Google LLC and/or any other internet service provider or platform hosting CTC Confidential Information posted by or at the direction of Defendant, and such entities shall comply with this Order.
Google LLC, its subsidiaries and affiliates, and any other person or entity with notice of this Order who is in possession of, or has the ability to remove, the CTC Confidential Information identified herein, are directed to remove such materials upon service of this Order and identification of the specific content by Plaintiff within 72 hours of service of this Order.
The Complaint alleges that “Shulgin – with both a Russian and U.S. online presence – used his former position as a technician subcontractor to misappropriate CTC’s confidential information to take photos … of the inside workings of a data center CTC is building in Memphis, Tennessee.” Seems pretty clearly unconstitutional and otherwise improper as to Google, who wasn’t made a party to the case (see here for more on the general legal questions raised by such orders aimed at third parties). But in any event, it struck me as worth noting.
