Prism Technologies v. Sprint Spectrum L.P.

Filing 317

ORDER - Defendant's motion (Filing No. 309 ) is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff's motion (Filing No. 310 ) is granted. Plaintiff's objection to defendant's motion (Filing No. 316 ) is denied as moot. The parties shall have seven additional days for discovery. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (GJG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
PRISM TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________)

8:12CV123

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on cross-motions of the
parties.

Plaintiff Prism moves (Filing No. 309) for a protective

order preventing defendant Sprint from expanding the scope of
this Court’s prior order (Filing No. 306).

Defendant Sprint asks

the Court to adopt its interpretation of that same order and
allow a hearing (Filing No. 310).

The Court has reviewed the

materials and finds as follows.
The parties have made their alternative positions known
to the Court and the arguments will not be restated here.
Essentially, Sprint wishes to enlarge the scope of this Court’s
previous order.

In that order, the Court struck Mr.

Malackowski’s expert report to the extent that one of his damage
theories relied upon information protected by the Protective
Order.

Now, after the parties briefed the Court in preparing and

deciding the previous order, Sprint wishes to interpret the
Court’s order in such a way as to strike materials never

complained of in AT&T’s briefs and not contemplated by the Court
in preparing that order.

In a previous brief in opposition

(Filing No. 296), Prism specifically noted that AT&T did not
object to using the Memorandum of Agreement and/or the Settlement
Agreement (Filing No. 296, at 9).

After review of the materials,

it is clear that AT&T never objected to the use of such
information.

Sprint states that this Court prohibited the use of

the AT&T Memorandum of Agreement and/or Settlement Agreement in
its previous order, but AT&T never moved for such a prohibition
and therefore no prohibition occurred.
After review, the Court will deny Sprint’s “emergency”
motion without prejudice.

Sprint may restate the motion as a

Daubert motion at the appropriate time.

Prism’s motion will be

granted.
IT IS ORDERED:
1) Defendant’s motion (Filing No. 309) is denied
without prejudice.
2) Plaintiff’s motion (Filing No. 310) is granted.
3) Plaintiff’s objection to defendant’s motion (Filing
No. 316) is denied as moot.

-2-

4) The parties shall have seven additional days for
discovery.
DATED this 6th day of March, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lyle E. Strom
____________________________
LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge
United States District Court

-3-