I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al
Filing
275
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 200 Motion for Discovery Sanctions, as stated on the record at the Motions Hearing on 9/18/12; GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART Defendant Google Inc.'s 209 Motion to Compel, with respect to relief to four categories of documents contained within the original motion that are DENIED as MOOT, as outlined in this Order. Within three days of the date of this Order, the plaintiff shall produce certain documents provided to potential investors by Innovate/Protect, Inc., the plaintiff's parent company, to the defendant with financial information redacted, as stated on the record at the Motions Hearing held on 9/18/12. The parties shall each bear their own expenses with respect to these motions. (See Order for Specifics) Entered and filed 9/18/12. (Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Bradford Stillman on 9/18/12). (ecav, )
FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8EP 1 8 2012
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Norfolk Division
CLERK, US DISTRICT COURT
I/P ENGINE,
NORFOLK, VA
INC.,
Plaintiff,
v-
Case No.
AOL,
INC.,
et
2:llcv512
al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
Before the Court are Plaintiff I/P Engine,
Inc.'s Motion for
Discovery Sanctions Regarding Untimely Disclosed Prior Art
(ECF No.
200)
Produce
and
Google
Documents
Inc.'s
{ECF No.
Motion
209).
to
Compel
On September 18,
hearing on these motions.
Jeffrey K.
W.
on
Brothers,
Perlson,
court
Esq.,
Esq.,
the
behalf
2012,
Sherwood,
of
the
Gloria
reasons
to
the Court held a
Esq.,
and Kenneth
plaintiff,
argued on behalf of the defendants.
reporter was
For
argued
Plaintiff
and
David
The official
Smith.
stated on
the
record,
the
Court
ORDERS
the
following:
1.
200)
is
2.
The plaintiff's motion for discovery sanctions
(ECF No.
DENIED.
Defendant Google Inc.'s motion to compel
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
(ECF No.
209)
is
The original motion requested
relief with respect to four categories of documents:
(a)
The
motion
sought
to
compel
the
production
of
certain
documents
Innovate/Protect,
Inc.,
is
GRANTED in part
of
documents.
plaintiff
consulting
The
of
the
counsel
of
dispute
prior
respect
to this
to
days
these
as
seeks
between
for
the
the
to
from
the
category of
(d)
of
itself
As
The
the
Kosak,
and
motion
defendant
with
production
one
of
parties
is
the
record.
Dickstein
The
Order,
two
of
a
named
Shapiro
LLP,
resolved
this
DENIED
as
MOOT
with
of documents.
records
of
Andrew
K.
Lang,
The parties
the
other
named
resolved this dispute
The motion is DENIED as MOOT with respect to
Dickstein Shapiro LLP's
clients
other
for sale,
and the actual
than
the
involvement on behalf
plaintiff
negotiating the
the motion is
documents.
-
2
-
in
offering
the
sale of the patents-in-
sale of the patents-in-suit
stated on the record,
category of
the
the
this
category
The motion seeks to compel the production of certain
patents-in-suit
suit,
The motion
documents.
related to
or
to
by
The motion seeks to compel the production of certain
prior to the hearing.
documents
of
compel
plaintiff.
inventor of the patents-in-suit.
this
investors
date
stated on
Donald
hearing.
category
the
documents
redacted,
motion
of
patents-in-suit,
record
(c)
documents
produce
agreement
inventors
potential
the plaintiff's parent company.
three
information
(b)
to
and DENIED in part with respect to this
Within
shall
financial
provided
to the plaintiff.
DENIED with respect
to this
3.
The
parties
shall
each
bear
their
own
expenses
with
respect to these motions.
IT
IS
SO ORDERED.
UNITED STATES\MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Norfolk,
Virginia
September \fe , 2012
-
3
-
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?