BRAND ENERGY & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES, INC. et al v. IREX CONTRACTING GROUP et al
Filing
270
ORDER THAT THE MOTION IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS OUTLINED. IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS, THE MOTION DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ORAL ARGUMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, LEAVE TO SUBMIT AN AFFIDAVIT FROM THEIR ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY CONTRACTOR IS DENIED. SIGNED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE ELIZABETH T. HEY ON 1/2/18. 1/3/18 ENTERED AND COPIES EMAILED TO COUNSEL.(jaa, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BRAND ENERGY & INFRASTRUCTURE
SERVICES, INC., et al.
v.
IREX CORPORATION, et al.
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 16-2499
ORDER
AND NOW, this 2nd day of January, 2018, upon consideration of Plaintiffs’
motion regarding production of prior forensic images of the Individual Defendants’ Irexrelated electronic devices (Doc. 260), the response (Doc. 264), and for the reasons stated
in the accompanying memorandum, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Within seven days of the entry of this
Order, Defendants shall produce all electronic images of the Individual Defendants’ Irexrelated electronic devices made in connection with this litigation but not yet produced in
discovery, and specifically including the images created as of June 2016. In all other
respects, the motion is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion
for oral argument or, in the alternative, leave to submit an affidavit from their electronic
discovery contractor (Doc. 266) IS DENIED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ELIZABETH T. HEY
_________________________________
ELIZABETH T. HEY, U.S.M.J.
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?