Rissman Hendricks & Oliverio, LLP v. MIV Therapeutics Inc et al

Filing 193

Judge Mark L. Wolf: ORDER entered. (Hohler, Daniel)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
RISSMAN HENDRICKS & OLIVERIO,
LLP f.k.a. RISSMAN JOSBE
HENDRICKS & OLIVERIO, LLP
f.k.a. KUDIRKA & JOBSE, LLP,
Plaintiff,

)
)
)
)
)
)
v.
)
)
MIV THERAPEUTICS INC., MIV
)
SCIENTIFIC HOLDINGS, LTD,
)
BIOSYNC SCIENTIFIC PVT, ALAN P. )
LINDSAY a.k.a ALAN LINDSAY,
)
PATRICK MCGOWAN, and CHRIS
)
XUNAN CHEN a.k.a. CHRIS CHEN,
)
Defendants.
)

C.A. No. 11-10791-MLW

ORDER
WOLF, D.J.

August 30, 2013

It is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff shall, by September 3, 2013, respond to the

Emergency Motion of Non-Party Subpoenaed Witness Dennis E. McKenna,
Esq. and Riemer & Braunstein for a Protective Order (Docket No.
187). If plaintiff opposes the motion, it shall describe with
specificity what the requested testimony of Mr. McKenna and Riemer
& Braunstein will address, why it is necessary or important, and
how long it is expected to take.
2. Plaintiff's Emergency Ex Parte Motion to File Under Seal
Plaintiff's Concurrently Filed Motion to Compel Production and
Preservation of Alan Lindsay's Text and Email Correspondence from
April 11, 2011 to Present (Docket No. 190) is DENIED. In addition,
the

Motion

prejudice.

to

Compel

(Docket

No.

190-1)

is

DENIED

without

In an August 28, 2013 Order that was sealed temporarily
(Docket No. 186), the court ordered the plaintiff to serve any
renewed Motion to Preserve and Compel. Plaintiff has not done so.
Evidently

misunderstanding

the

August

29,

2013

sealed

Order,

plaintiff also has not filed a redacted version of sealed Docket
No. 185. In addition, plaintiff has not complied with Rule 7.1 (B)
(1)

of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the

District of Massachusetts by failing to file a memorandum of
reasons and legal authorities, and supporting affidavits with the
renewed motion. In the absence of a persuasive affidavit, plaintiff
has not provided justification for what would be, in effect, the
issuance of an injunction ex parte. See F. R. Civ. P. 65 (b) (1)
(A). Accordingly, Plaintiff's Ex Parte Emergency Motion (Docket No.
190-1)

has

been

denied

without

prejudice

to

possible

reconsideration if and when it is served and the court receives a
response.
3. Docket entries 185, 186 and 190 are UNSEALED.

/s/ Mark L. Wolf
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2