Nano-Second Technology Co Ltd v. Dynaflex International

Filing 67

ORDER by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew: Defendant Dynaflex International's ("Defendant") 50 Ex Parte Application to Strike Application to Strike Plaintiff Nano-Second's ("Plaintiff") Supplemental Declaration is DENIED AS MOOT. Furthermore, the Court DENIES Defendant's request for sanctions as the Court does not find that Plaintiff acted in bad faith in filing the Supplemental Declaration four days before the hearing. (lom)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10 NANO-SECOND TECHNOLOGY CO., )
)
LTD., a Taiwanese
11 Corporation
)
)
12
)
Plaintiff,
)
13
)
v.
)
14
)
)
15 DYNAFLEX INTERNATIONAL,
)
a California Corporation
)
16
)
Defendant.
)
17
)
18

CV 10-9176 RSWL (MANx)
ORDER Re: Defendant
Dynaflex International’s
Ex Parte Application to
Strike Plaintiff NanoSecond’s Supplemental
Declaration and for
Sanctions [50]

Before the Court is Defendant Dynaflex

19 International’s (“Defendant”) Ex Parte Application to
20 Strike Plaintiff Nano-Second’s (“Plaintiff”)
21 Supplemental Declaration and for Sanctions [50].
22 Defendant requests that the Court strike a Supplemental
23 Declaration that Plaintiff submitted four days before
24 the Court’s September 14, 2011 hearing on Plaintiff’s
25 Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

This Supplemental

26 Declaration, however, was not pertinent to the Court’s
27 analysis on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary
28 Injunction.

Accordingly Defendant’s Ex Parte
1

1 Application to Strike Plaintiff Nano-Second’s
2 (“Plaintiff”) Supplemental Declaration is DENIED AS
3 MOOT.
4

Furthermore, the Court DENIES Defendant’s request

5 for sanctions as the Court does not find that Plaintiff
6 acted in bad faith in filing the Supplemental
7 Declaration four days before the hearing.
8
9
10 DATED: October 25, 2011
11 IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
13
14
15

HONORABLE RONALD S.W. LEW
Senior, U.S. District Court Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2