Glynn v. EDO Corporation et al

Filing 342

LETTER OPINION granting 284 MOTION to Seal Exhibit F to IST's Memorandum on Areas of Dispute regarding the Computer Forensics Protocol, denying 293 MOTION for Reconsideration, denying 295 MOTION to Strike, denying 292 MOTION for Other Re lief, denying 305 Emergency MOTION for Extension of Time Regarding Expert Witness Disclosures, granting 297 MOTION for Leave to File Documents Under Seal, granting 314 MOTION to Seal MOTION for Leave to File Document Under Seal, denying 326 M OTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for IST's Memorandum in Support of its Omnibus Motion to Dismiss, denying 320 MOTION for Order to Show Cause Why Glynn and His Counsel Should Not Be Found in Contempt of the Court's Orders, denying [28 0] MOTION for Other Relief to Clarify Common Interest Issues, denying 281 MOTION Decision regarding Computer Forensic Protocol Issues, denying 294 Third Party MOTION to Quash or alternatively for Protective Order, denying 289 MOTION for Extension of Time to respond to Saltwhistle's Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge J. Frederick Motz on 3/18/2010. (DOCUMENT #341 refiled by Clerk to correct the docket)(egs, Deputy Clerk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

CHAMBERS OF

J. FREDERICK MOTZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

101 WEST LOMBARD STREET BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201 [phone] [phone] FAX

March 18, 2010 MEMO TO COUNSEL RE: Dennis Glynn v. EDO Corporation Civil No. JFM-07-1660 Dear Counsel: I have permitted this litigation to spin far out of control. In order to restore some semblance of order to the chaos, I am going to cut through the Gordian Knot you have tied by the following rulings: 1. 2. 3. All pending motions, other than pending motions to seal, IST's motion for sanctions, and Glynn's motion for partial lifting of the stay of discovery, are denied. All pending motions to seal are granted. Among the motions being denied is IST's motion for leave to file a memorandum in excess of 50 pages in support of its motion for sanctions. The deadline for IST to file a revised memorandum of 67 pages or less is April 1, 2010. IST may not incorporate by reference in its memorandum any other memorandum or paper that has been filed. The deadline for Glynn to file a response to IST's motion for sanctions is April 23, 2010. The response may be 67 pages or less. Plaintiff may not in its response incorporate by reference any other memorandum or paper that has been filed. The pendency of Glynn's motion for partial lifting of the stay of discovery shall not affect Glynn's responsibility to file an response to the motion for sanctions; the response should be based upon the existing record. The deadline for IST to file a reply memorandum in support of its motion for sanctions is May 14, 2010. The reply shall not be longer than that permitted by the Local Rules. IST may not in its reply incorporate by reference any other memorandum or paper that has been filed. A hearing on IST's motion for sanctions and Glynn's motion for partial lifting of

4.

5.

6.

the stay of discovery will be held on June 25, 2010 at 9:30 a.m. No one should file any motions until I have ruled upon IST's motion for sanctions. Despite the informal nature of this letter, it should be flagged as an opinion and docketed as an order. Very truly yours, /s/ J. Frederick Motz United States District Judge