Alex Shpisman v. EnvisionTEC GmbH et al
Filing
29
ORDER RE ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER by Judge Manuel L. Real (pj)
& LIANG APLC
1 LEE TRANHansen (Bar No. 198401)
Steven R.
Enoch H. Liang (Bar
2 601 S. Figueroa Street,No. 212324)
Suite 4025
Los Angeles, California 90017
3 Telephone: (213) 612-3737
4 Facsimile: (213) 612-3773 ehl@ltlcounsel.com
E-mail: srh@ltlcounsel.com;
5
6 Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaim
Plaintiff Envisiontec, Inc.
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – WESTERN
10
11 ALEX SHPISMAN, an individual,
CASE NO. CV10 8355 R (PJWx)
12
ORDER RE: ENTRY OF
PROTECTIVE ORDER
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ENVISIONTEC GmbH, an entity of
)
unknown origin, ENVISIONTEC, INC., a )
Michigan corporation.
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
)
ENVISIONTEC, INC., a Michigan
)
corporation,
)
)
Counterclaim Plaintiff, )
)
v.
)
)
ALEX SHIPISMAN, an individual,
)
)
Counterclaim Defendant. )
)
)
)
DATE: May 2, 2011
TIME: 10:00 a.m.
CTRM: 8
Action Filed: November 3, 2010
First Amended Complaint Filed:
December 22, 2010
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff Envisiontec, Inc.’s Motion for Protective Order
came on for regular hearing on May 2, 2011 at 10 a.m. before this Court. Having
considered the parties’ joint stipulation, any oppositions and replies thereto, the
oral argument of the parties’ during the hearing, and for the reasons expressed on
the record during the hearing, it is hereby ORDERED that Envisiontec, Inc.’s
Motion for Protective Order is granted.
It is hereby ORDERED that the protective order attached as Exhibit “1” to
this Order is entered.
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
13
14
15
DATED: May 11, 2011
________________________________________
Hon. Manuel L. Real
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER
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?