Judge Takes Extension Request Under Advisement After Tech Company Claims 'First Time' Discovery of Issues It Raised Months Earlier

The dispute centers on a partnership agreement between accounting software company Correll Accounting Inc., doing business as UniFi, and Autymate LLC, along with its principal Bryan M. Perdue. UniFi alleges that Autymate has blocked its access to critical business systems and allowed their joint AutyFi application to deteriorate while exploiting partnership assets for a competing product called 'AIGrowth Advisor.'

Judge Campbell issued a comprehensive temporary restraining order requiring Autymate and Perdue to restore UniFi's access to 16 different systems and platforms, including the AutyFi production application, Azure DevOps, Google Workspace, Slack, and various marketing tools. The court later amended the order on April 2 to clarify that defendants must 'restore, and thereafter maintain, the AutyFi application to as it was on September 24, 2024, including Correll Accounting, Inc. d/b/a UniFi's access and ability to onboard new accounts, maintain existing accounts, and use standard reports and scorecards.'

In rejecting Autymate's characterization of the issues as newly discovered, Judge Campbell delivered pointed criticism: 'However, the bugs and errors UniFi identified on April 9 are the same ones it identified on December 19, 2025... As are the systems that UniFi identified as not fully accessible: Mem.ai, Google Drive, and AzureDevOps.' The court's comparison of the two filings revealed that Autymate had been aware of these problems for nearly four months.

The case began when UniFi filed for injunctive relief under Rule 65, alleging breach of their partnership agreement. After UniFi posted the required bond, the court initially ordered defendants to restore access within three business days. However, UniFi returned to court in December 2025, claiming continued noncompliance and arguing that Autymate had allowed the AutyFi platform to accumulate bugs that rendered it 'essentially nonfunctional.' Autymate responded in January 2026 that UniFi was improperly seeking to expand the restraining order's scope.

Autymate's extension request attempted to distinguish between maintenance issues and software development improvements, suggesting different cost responsibilities. Judge Campbell firmly rejected this distinction, writing that 'Autymate and Perdue are responsible for restoring, and thereafter maintaining, the AutyFi application to as it was on September 24, 2024, irrespective of how they characterize the means of achieving that result (i.e., maintenance v. resolving issue via software development).' The court added that defendants 'are responsible for all costs they incur in connection with the TRO, including the cost of compliance.'

The order reveals ongoing tensions over access to business-critical systems, with UniFi alleging that Autymate continues to exploit partnership assets for competing products. The court previously found Autymate's interpretation of the restraining order 'too narrow' and has now required them to maintain full functionality of the shared platform.

Judge Campbell noted that Autymate's motion did not indicate whether UniFi opposed the extension request, prompting the court to seek input from the plaintiff before ruling. UniFi must respond by Wednesday, April 15, 2026, after which the court will determine whether to grant additional time for compliance with what appears to be a months-old directive.