Russell v. Motorola Inc Mobile Business Devices et al

Filing 53

ORDER granting 41 Motion to Seal; granting 42 Motion to Compel and giving plaintiff until July 13, 2012 to provide Motorola with the information outlined in this Order; and denying 46 Motion to Dismiss. The Court reopens the window for service until July 30, 2012. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 6/29/12. (kpr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LARRY CRAIG RUSSELL v. PLAINTIFF No.4:11-cv-764-DPM MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC.; and RUSSELL CELLULAR-VERIZON DEFENDANTS ORDER The Court grants, as modified, Mr. Russell's motion to seal records. Document No. 41. Any court document containing medical records or medical information must be filed under seal. The Court also grants Motorola's motion to compel. Document No. 42. Mr. Russell has until 13 July 2012 to provide Motorola with the names and addresses of anybody with knowledge about the facts underlying Mr. Russell's complaint. By that same date, Mr. Russell must also put pencil to paper and provide Motorola specifics about the sources of, and evidence for, his alleged damages. He must also provide a copy of his video tape of the first phone examination by July 13th too. Motorola is also entitled to test the allegedly defective cell phone. But the testing should take place in Arkansas so that Mr. Russell may be present. Finally, the Court denies Russell Cellular-Verizon' s motion to dismiss. Document No. 46. The Court reopens the window for service until 30 July 2012. FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m). Mr. Russell must make good service on Russell Cellular-Verizon before then and must provide proof of such service. The Court's reasoning for each of these rulings was stated on the record at the 28 June 2012 hearing. So Ordered. D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge -2­

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?