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, )

Download PDF
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?