KROLL v. DOLL et al
MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge James Robertson on February 19, 2010. (MT)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MICHAEL I. KROLL, Plaintiff, v. JOHN J. DOLL, Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, et al., Defendants. : : : : : Civil Action No. 09-1484 (JR) : : : : : :
MEMORANDUM Neither party has added anthing but argument to the record since my memorandum order of 1/29/10 [#12]. (a) argues that the question of what is a reasonable interpretation under Chevron always involves disputed questions of fact, and (b) invokes Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) to support his demand for discovery, but (a) the Ninth Circuit case on which he relies (which never was controlling law in this Circuit) was reversed, Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001), and (b) his Rule 56(f) motion is unsupported by the required affidavit or by any statement of what discovery is needed or what plaintiff (or the Court) might learn from it. For the reasons set forth in my Plaintiff
memorandum order of 1/29/10, summary judgment will now be granted in favor of the PTO. memorandum. An appropriate order accompanies this
JAMES ROBERTSON United States District Judge
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?