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, )

Download PDF
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?