A federal judge has rejected a Philadelphia lawyer's argument that he needs more information about personal injury firm Morgan & Morgan's advertisements and client relationships.

In an order filed Friday morning, U.S. District Judge Mark Kearney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied Jeff Rosenbaum's motion to compel, filed earlier this week. Rosenbaum's suit alleges that Orlando-based Morgan & Morgan has been running deceptive advertisements, causing a decline in new clients at Rosenbaum & Associates.

In his order, Kearney acknowledged that he had granted Rosenbaum's motion for expedited discovery, related to his request that Morgan & Morgan ads be pulled from television while the case is pending. But, the order said, arguing for that injunction does not require information on past ads and old referral relationships.

“Plaintiffs do not explain how information from before Aug. 1, 2017, is relevant to show defendants are now causing imminent irreparable harm,” Kearney wrote in a lengthy footnote. “We cannot enjoin history.”

Kearney noted that the requested information might be relevant at trial, but said it is not relevant to the injunction motion set to be heard Jan. 4.

Rosenbaum had argued that old ads are relevant to the suit because they have an impact on current commercials, which is why federal courts often require corrective ads when a campaign is found to be misleading.

But lawyers for Morgan & Morgan, in a response filed Thursday, said Rosenbaum's motion left out communication between the parties about discovery, and misrepresented the data Morgan & Morgan has already provided. Exhibits to the response included a letter explaining that information from August 2017 and afterward was sufficient for discovery on the injunction motion.

The defendants said much of the information Rosenbaum seeks is irrelevant, as the defendants have not denied referring cases to other attorneys. And with regard to requests for information about specific clients, Morgan & Morgan said it does not want to provide that information without the clients' direction.

“Plaintiff is on a fishing expedition, essentially seeking 'full case' discovery in the guise of a motion for preliminary injunction,” Morgan & Morgan said in its response.

Gaetan Alfano of Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, who is representing Morgan & Morgan, declined to discuss Friday's order. Ryan Cohen of Rosenbaum & Associates, who is representing his firm, did not respond to a call seeking comment.