Aurora, Colorado, City of v. PS Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 132

ORDER: granting in part and denying in part 124 Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendants Motion to Compel Supplemental Document Production, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 1/27/10.(bnbcd, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland Civil Action No. 07-cv-02371-PAB-BNB CITY OF AURORA, COLORADO, a municipal corporation, acting by and through its Utility Enterprise, Aurora Water, Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant, and GRIMM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., d/b/a Garney Construction, a Colorado corporation, Counterclaim Defendant, v. PS SYSTEMS, INC., a Colorado corporation, and RAR GROUP, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER ______________________________________________________________________________ This matter arises on Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendants' Motion to Compel Supplemental Document Production [Doc. # 124, filed 1/6/2010] (the "Motion to Compel"). I held a hearing on the Motion to Compel this morning and made rulings on the record, which are incorporated here. In summary and for the reasons stated on the record: IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as follows: GRANTED to require the defendants to produce, on or before February 15, 2010, all documents in their possession, custody, and control, not previously produced, that comprise the file history in U.S. Patent Application No. 10/704, 347. The materials may be produced subject to the protective order in place in this case and designated for attorney eyes only, and may further limit disclosure to exclude plaintiff's counsel Steve Sims; and DENIED in all other respects. Dated January 27, 2010. BY THE COURT: s/ Boyd N. Boland United States Magistrate 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?