Certusview Technologies, LLC v. S & N Locating Services, LLC et al

Filing 352

ORDER Denying 341 Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 341. In light of such ruling, the Court CANCELS the hearing originally set for August 14, 2015 because oral argument would not aid in the decisional process. The Court DIRECTS counsel for the parties to contact the docket clerk within seven (7) days after the entry of this Memorandum Order to set the date for the bench trial in this matter.. Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis and filed on 8/7/15. Copies distributed to all parties 8/7/15. (ldab, )

UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Norfolk Division

CERTUSVIEW TECHNOLOGIES,

LLC,

Plaintiff,
Civil Action No.

v.

S&N LOCATING SERVICES,

2:13cv346

LLC,

and

S&N COMMUNICATIONS,

INC.,

Defendants

MEMORANDUM

This
Judgment,

matter
ECF

("Plaintiff").

is

No.

before

341,

the

Court

filed by

In such motion,

ORDER

on

a

CertusView

Motion

for

Summary

Technologies,

LLC,

Plaintiff seeks summary judgment

on inequitable conduct counterclaims that S&N Locating Services,

LLC,

and S&N Communications,

"S&N")

Inc.,

(collectively "Defendants" or

have asserted against Plaintiff.

of the briefing on Plaintiff's motion,
hearing for August

14,

2015.

Prior to the submission

the Court had scheduled a

However,

now

that

the matter

is

ripe for disposition,

after examining the briefs and the record,

the

Court determines

that oral argument

the

facts

contentions

and

legal

are

is unnecessary because

adequately

presented

oral argument would not aid in the decisional process.
Civ.

P. 78(b); E.D. Va.

Loc.

R.

7(J).

Fed.

and
R.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1
This case began as a patent
Plaintiff

that

asserted

involve

that

infringement action in which

Defendants

technology

for

had

the

infringed

prevention

five

of

patents

damage

to

underground infrastructure: U.S. Patent No. 8,290,204 ("the '204
patent"),
Patent

U.S.

No.

8,265,344

Patent No.

8,340,359
("the

("the

'344

("the

'341 patent"

and

'344

asserted

Plaintiff.

'359

patent"),

patents,

Defendants

8,407,001

and,

("the

'001 patent"),

patent"),

and

U.S.

Patent

collectively with the
"the

Patent

No.

'204,

conduct

2015,

the

No.

8,532,341

%001,

patents-in-suit").

inequitable

On January 21,

U.S.

U.S.

'359,

Thereafter,

counterclaims

against

Court granted Defendants'

motion for judgment on the pleadings and held that each of

the

asserted claims of the patents-in-suit were invalid because they
did

not

Order,

claim
ECF

judgment

No.

in

claims.

patent-eligible
250.

favor

Judgment,

On

of

that

subject
same

Defendants

ECF

No.

on

251.

matter.

date,

the

Opinion
Court

Plaintiff's
Thus,

and

entered

infringement

only

Defendants'

inequitable conduct counterclaims remain in this action.

1 The Court has set forth, at length, the factual and procedural
history in this matter in its prior opinions granting Defendants'
motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiff's infringement
claims and granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's motion to
dismiss Defendants' inequitable conduct counterclaims.
See CertusView

Techs., LLC v. S&N Locating Servs., LLC,
2454277 (E.D. Va. May 22, 2015); icL<
269427

(E.D.

Va.

Jan.

21,

2015).

F. Supp. 3d
F. Supp. 3d

, 2015 WL
, 2015 WL

After the Court granted Defendants'

motion for judgment on

the pleadings as to Plaintiff's infringement claims,
initiated

a

two-fold

Answer.

Plaintiff

challenge

objected

to

to

Defendants'

the

Plaintiff

First

magistrate

Amended

judge's

Order

granting Defendants leave to amend their answer and Plaintiff
also

moved

to

counterclaims.
Order,

ECF No.

While
First

dismiss

Defendants'

See PL's Objections
256; PL's Mot.

Plaintiff

in this

to

conduct

the Magistrate Judge's

to Dismiss,

contested

Amended Answer

inequitable

ECF No.

the

sufficiency

Court,

Plaintiff

260.

of

Defendants'

appealed

to

the

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from the
Court's judgment on Plaintiff's infringement claims.
Appeal,

ECF

No.

267.

However,

on

May

15,

2015,

Notice of
the

Federal

Circuit stayed Plaintiff's appeal pending the Court's resolution
of

its

challenges

CertusView Techs.,

1404,

-1571 (Fed.

to

Defendants'

First

S&N Locating

Servs.,

LLC v.

Cir.

May 15,

2015)

(ECF No.

Amended
LLC,

Answer.

Nos.

2015-

324 on the Court's

docket).

On

May

22,

2015,

the

Court

and

2015 Order and granting in part and denying in part

Plaintiff's

motion

Counterclaims.

ECF

No.

Defendants'

325.

That

magistrate

Order

January 16,

and

the

Opinion

Plaintiff's

dismiss

to

an

overruling

to

objections

issued

First

same

judge's

Amended

day,

the

Answer

Court

directed the parties to submit status reports regarding how the

Court should proceed to resolve Defendants'
counterclaims.

In

either

its

status

stay

validity

Order,

the

for

ECF No.

report,

case

326.

Plaintiff

and

inequitable conduct

certify

interlocutory

requested

the

appeal

issue

or

that

of

dismiss

the

Court

Section

101

Defendants'

inequitable conduct counterclaims without prejudice to refiling
once

the

appeal.

permit

Federal

Circuit

issued

In the alternative,

Plaintiff

Defendants'

to

summary judgment,

mandate

in

Plaintiff's

Plaintiff requested that the Court

immediately

inequitable

its

move

conduct

for

summary

judgment

counterclaims.

on

Regarding

Plaintiff made the following representation to

the Court:

While the Court concluded that S&N's pleading states a
claim under Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
575 F.3d 1312
(Fed. Cir.
2009),
S&N cannot prove
inequitable conduct under the heightened standard of
Therasense, Inc. v. Bee ton, Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d

1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) or when a full set of undisputed
facts are presented rather than the allegations in the
amended answer.

.

.

.

PL's Status Report at 5 n.4,

On

June

30,

2015,

ECF No. 328.

the

Court

interlocutory appeal in this matter,
56(C),
for

the Court
summary

counterclaims.

found good cause

judgment

on

declined

certify

an

but, pursuant to Local Rule
to permit

Defendants'

Order, ECF No. 339.

to

Plaintiff

inequitable

to move
conduct

The Court set an expedited

briefing schedule and set the matter for a hearing on August 14,
2015.2

On July 22,
Defendants'

2015,

Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on

inequitable conduct counterclaims.

support of its motion,

Plaintiff

In its brief in

devotes roughly one double-

spaced page to its statement of undisputed facts.
Supp. Mot. for Summ. J. at 2-3,

ECF No. 342.

of undisputed facts,

describes,

Plaintiff

PL's Mem.

In such statement

in broad terms,

its

patents and aspects of their prosecution history and states that
"[t]rue and correct testimony" of Curtis Chambers, Jeffrey Farr,

Joseph Teja, Jr., David Crawford,
to Plaintiff's brief.

facts

omitted

any

Id.

facts

conduct

allegations.

summary

judgment

Plaintiff

dedicates

citations

counterclaims.

On
motion.

July
In

to
See

29,

facts
id.

brief

conduct
of

2015,

its

record

inequitable

description
standard
brief

of

to

of

the

review,

argue

pertaining

responded

Defendants

the Federal

CertusView Techs.,

Cir.

the

Defendants

Defendants'

(Fed.

in

response,

Court.

-1571

a

Defendants'

the

to

such

at 4-30.

because

1404,

remainder

to

inequitable conduct counterclaims—complete

appeal

docket).

After

inequitable

2015,

their

2 On July 9,

responsive

the

merits of Defendants'

with

Plaintiff's statement of undisputed

Id.

and

and Gregory Block is attached

to

contend

that

remained

pending

LLC v. S&N Locating Servs.,

9,

2015)

the

Court

Circuit dismissed Plaintiff's

counterclaims

July

Plaintiff's

(ECF

No.

340

LLC,

on

in

Nos.

the

this
2015-

Court's

should deny Plaintiff's motion or, in the alternative, disregard
all

facts

facts

not

stated

because

56(B).

in

Plaintiff's

such
Mem.

Defs.'

statement

did

Opp'n Mot.

statement

not

comply

of

with

undisputed

Local

Rule

for Summ. J. at 2-3, ECF No.

343.

Specifically, Defendants note that Plaintiff's brief "is replete
with

factual

citations

(from which

it

argues)

that

are

absent

from its 'Undisputed Facts'" and contend that Plaintiff cannot
satisfy Local Rule 56(B) by attempting to incorporate,
entirety,

deposition

transcripts

Teja, Crawford, and Block.

On August
dedicates
merits

the

of

opening

3,

totality

brief,

such

of

its

Chambers,

filed its reply.

reply

to

argument

counterclaims.

reply

includes

statement of

Plaintiff

Messrs.

Farr,

Id. at 3.

Plaintiff

Defendants'

from Plaintiff's
however,

2015,

from

in their

does

citations

address

Indeed,

regarding

with

to

undisputed facts.

not

regarding Local Rule 56(B).

As

Plaintiff
the

Plaintiff's

facts
In

Defendants'

its

absent
reply,

contention

Plaintiff does not,

in any

way, explain its apparent disregard for the Court's Local Rules.
II.

STANDARD

OF

Through the Rules Enabling Act,

have granted the
rules of

Supreme Court

practice

States district

and procedure

courts

.

.

. ."

REVIEW

Congress and the President

"the power to prescribe general
. . . for cases
28

U.S. C.

in the United

§ 2072(a);

see also

id.

§

2071(a).

Pursuant

to

such authority,

the

Supreme

Court

has established the following rule:

After

giving

comment,

public

notice

and

an

opportunity

for

a district court, acting by a majority of its

district judges, may adopt and amend rules governing
its practice. A local rule must be consistent with—but
not duplicate—federal statutes and rules adopted under
28

U.S.C.

uniform

§§

2072

numbering

Conference

of

the

and

2075,

and

must

system

prescribed

United

States.

conform

by

A

the

local

to

any

Judicial

rule

takes

effect on the date specified by the district court and
remains

in

effect

unless

amended

by

the

court

or

abrogated by the judicial council of the circuit.
Copies
of
rules
and
amendments
must,
on
their
adoption, be furnished to the judicial council and the
Administrative

Office

of

the

United

States

Courts

and

be made available to the public.
Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

83(a) (1).

In

accordance

with

such

rule,

a

majority of the district judges of this Court has adopted Local
Rules.

Local Rule 56(B)

concerns summary judgment and provides:

Each brief in support of a motion for summary judgment
shall include a specifically captioned section listing
all material
facts
as
to which
the moving party
contends there is no genuine issue and citing the
parts of the record relied on to support the listed
facts as alleged to be undisputed. A brief in response
to
such
a
motion
shall
include
a
specifically
captioned section listing all material facts as to

which it is contended that there exists a genuine
issue necessary to be litigated and citing the parts
of the record relied on to support the facts alleged
to be in dispute. In determining a motion for summary
judgment, the Court may assume that facts identified
by the moving party in its listing of material facts
are

admitted,

unless

such

a

fact

is

controverted

in

the statement of genuine issues filed in opposition to
the motion.

E.D. Va. Loc. R.

moves

56(B)

(emphasis added).

for summary judgment without

In short, a party who

"includ[ing]

a specifically

captioned section listing all material facts as to which the
moving party contends there is no genuine issue and citing the
parts of the record relied on to support the listed facts as

alleged to be undisputed" has violated the Court's Local Rules.
Id.

A

court's

generally

varies

violation.
Rule

response
in

to

a

violation

proportion

to

of

the

the

Local

seriousness

Rules

of

the

In response to a movant's blatant violation of Local

56(B),

outright.

the

Court

may deny a motion

Mitchell v. Angelone,

for summary judgment

82 F. Supp.

2d 485, 487

(E.D.

Va. 1999).3

However, even if a movant fails to comply with Local

Rule

the

56 (B),

"resolve

the

Court

has

substantive

issues

consider them at trial."
442,

Supp.

444

2d

3 See

(E.D.

814,

also

Va.

the

see

(E.D.

Va.

Dixon

v.

equitable

raised and

alleviate

Williams v. Gradall Co.,

1998) ;

819

inherent

also

Hedrick

2001).

Ramirez,

Action

v.

Thus,

No.

authority
the

need

to

990 F. Supp.

Roberts,

for

to

183

more

2:l2cvl37,

F.

minor

2012

WL

8441425, at *2 (E.D. Va. July 18, 2012) (unpublished), aff'd, 509 F.
App'x 258 (4th Cir. 2013) (unpublished) (per curiam) ; Adams v. Object
Innovation, Inc., Civil No. 3:Ilcv272-REP-DWD, 2011 WL 7042224, at *10

(E.D. Va. Dec. 5, 2011)
(unpublished),
report and recommendation
adopted, 2012 WL 135428 (E.D. Va. Jan. 17, 2012) (unpublished); Allen
v.

City of Fredericksburg,

Civil Action No.

3:09cv63,

2011 WL 782039,

at *12 (E.D. Va. Feb. 22, 2011) (unpublished); Roche v. Lincoln Prop.
Co. , No. Civ.A. 02-1390-A, 2003 WL 22002716, at *9 (E.D. Va. July 25,
2003)

(unpublished),

rev'd in part,

vacated in part,

373 F.3d 610

Cir. 2004), rev'd, 546 U.S. 81 (2005), aff'd on remand,

(4th

175 F. App'x

597 (4th Cir. 2006)
(unpublished) ; cf. Tross v. Ritz Carlton Hotel
Co. , 928 F. Supp. 2d 498, 503-04 (D. Conn. 2013) (under an analogous
local rule, denying a motion for summary judgment lacking the required
statement of undisputed facts).

violations of Local Rule 56(B),

courts sometimes will refuse to

"elevate

and,

form

over

substance"

instead,

party's failure to comply with the rule.
of Hampton,
*3-4

(E.D.

Civil

LLC,
Va.

Civil Action No.

Mar.

Action No.

14,

2014);

2:13cv334,

will

2014 WL 1050586,

see SwimWays Corp.

WL

the

White v. Golden Corral

4:13cv27,

2014

excuse

3615981,

v.

at

Zuru,

*9

at

Inc.,

(E.D.

Va.

July 18, 2014) (Davis, J.).
III.

Although the parties
of

their

conduct

briefing

to

counterclaims,

DISCUSSION

have dedicated considerable portions

the
the

merits
Court

of

Defendants'

will

DENY

for summary judgment because Plaintiff,

utterly disregarded Local Rule 56(B).
statement of
Plaintiff

to

support

its

Plaintiff's

motion

without explanation,

has

Plaintiff has submitted a

undisputed facts devoid of

relies

inequitable

those facts upon which

motion.

Moreover,

when

Defendants challenged Plaintiff's noncompliance with such rule,
Plaintiff
Court's

declined

Local

violations of
where

a

to

Rules.

the

party's

explain
The

its

Court

Local Rules.

indifference

has

short

of

Defendants

the

have

statement

of

requirements

alleged

the

However,

towards

denial of a summary judgment motion,

Plaintiff's

failure

that

comply

discretion

if

Local

there

Rule

with

to

the

forgive

is any case

56(B)

warrants

it is this one.

undisputed
of

to

this

facts
Court's

Plaintiff's

falls

woefully

Local

patents

Rules.

are

unenforceable

misconduct:
inventor

as

(1)

a

result

the

'204,

misrepresentations
'204, '359,

the

TelDig

failure

art;

and

"Sawyer"
seeks

Suite

disclose

(5)

the

art

judgment

on

not

any

forth

families
"Steven

simply

of

'204,

to

the

the
facts

and

and

attempts

however,

of

patents;

(2)

material

prior

art;

conduct
in

the

Plaintiff's

Chambers

are

conduct

are

a

to

Instead,

the

general

the

part,

named

does

attempt

allegations.
strokes,

and

Plaintiff

facts

patents-in-suit,

patents-in-suit

Curtis

although

undisputed

broad

prior

"Tucker"

inequitable

of

to

the

(4)

patent

and

inventors

that

on

all

while Jeffrey Farr is also a named inventor on the

Summ. J. at 1.
facts

acts

failure to disclose

However,

essential

within
the

(3)

regarding

statement

describes,

which

Nielsen

'001

Defendants'

inequitable

embraced

five patents,

'001,

facts

Defendants'

as

references.

Plaintiff's

technology

alleged

ESRI ArcPad software as material

counterclaims,

Plaintiff

and

product

misrepresentations

summary

refute

'341,

'344, and '341 patents;

prior

set

following

regarding Block's status as an inventor of

Utility

to

the

misrepresentations regarding Farr's status as an

of

the

of

'341

[p] atents."

PL's

Mem.

Supp.

Mot.

for

In addition, Plaintiff's statement of undisputed
to

incorporate

transcripts

of

five

depositions;

citation to such transcripts without any reference
stated

support its motion,

therein,

upon

which

Plaintiff

does not permit the Court to
10

relies

to

discern those

facts

that Plaintiff

the

body

of

exclusively

contends

are

Plaintiff's

to

facts

undisputed.

brief,

outside

Furthermore,

Plaintiff

its

cites

one-page

in

almost

statement

of

undisputed facts to support its contention that it is entitled
to summary judgment on each of Defendants'

inequitable conduct

counterclaims

failed

because

sufficient

evidence

Therasense,

Inc.

Cir.

Defendants

(en banc) .

2011)

assertion

that

v.

it

to

have

demonstrate

inequitable

Becton,

is

Dickinson & Co.,

to

adduce

conduct

under

649 F.3d 1276

(Fed.

By relying on such facts to support its
entitled

to

judgment

as

a

matter of

law,

Plaintiff indicated that such facts are

"material"

"might affect the outcome of the suit."

See Anderson v. Liberty

Lobby

Inc. ,

477

U.S.

242,

248

include within its statement of

(1986).

But,

because they

by

failing

to

undisputed facts those facts on

which Plaintiff later relies throughout its brief,

Plaintiff did

not

moving

"lis [t]

all

material

facts

as

to

which

the

party

contends there is no genuine issue and cit[e]

the parts of the

record relied on to

as

undisputed."

E.D.

support

Va.

the

Loc.

R.

listed facts

56(B).

alleged to

Accordingly,

be

Plaintiff

violated Local Rule 56(B).
Plaintiff's

procedural
unwary

violation

misstep.

designed

to

of

Local
ensnare

inextricably connected to

the

Rule

Local

56(B)

hapless

Rules

is

litigants.

the burden that
11

not

the

is

a

more

trap

for

Rather,
Federal

than

a

the

it

is

Rules

of

Civil Procedure impose on a summary judgment movant:

"show[ing]

that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant
Civ.

It

is entitled to judgment as

P.

56(a).

notifies

contends

Local

Rule

non-moving

are

56(B)

parties

undisputed

and

a matter of
serves

of

the

two

Fed.

R.

salutary purposes.

facts

support

law."

the

that

the

movant's

movant

alleged

entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and it provides the
Court with an organized analytical

any material

factual

dispute

undermines

those

dual

assess whether

exists and whether the movant

entitled to the relief sought.
56(B)

framework to

is

A party that ignores Local Rule
purposes

and

impedes

the

Court's

ability to fairly and expeditiously resolve a motion for summary

judgment.

As

aptly

stated

by

another

court

applying

its

analogous local rule:

When a party fails to comply with these provisions it
is unfair to its adversary, which has a right to know
the factual bases of
its opponent's case and the
specific foundations for those assertions of fact; and
its conduct is adverse to the conservation of judicial
resources, which are most efficiently deployed when
the parties fulfill their adversarial functions in a
rigorously organized, coherent fashion.
Jackson

v.

(N.D.N.Y.
28

641

(1st

Broome

2000);

Cir.

(7th Cir.

Cnty.

Corr.

Facility,

194

see also Ruiz Rivera v. Riley,

2000);

Little

1995) .

v.

Cox's

Accordingly,

F.R.D.

209 F.3d 24,

Supermarkets,

while

a

436,

court

71

F.3d

437

27637,

occasionally

may forgive a litigant for failing to strictly comply with mere

12

procedural formalities in the Local Rules, a violation of Local
Rule 56 (B) lies at the more serious end of the spectrum of non

compliance because such rule originates from the burden that the
Federal Rules

of

Civil

summary judgment.
is

critical

Procedure

impose on a party moving

A movant's compliance with Local Rule

for

a

court—and

opposing

parties—to

for

56(B)

assess

the

merits of the movant's summary judgment motion.
In
56(B)

this

case,

warrants

Plaintiff's

denial

of

Plaintiff's statement of

near

compliance

Rules.

with

To be sure,

alone

does

not

appropriate

its

that

is

"[w]hile

Court's

Here,

report,

asserted that

set

Local

forth

Rule

above,

as

ripe
the

of

the

Court's

Local

the extent of Plaintiff's violation

the

Plaintiff's status
case

follow

As

requirements

however,

sanction.

"[t]he

motion.

to

undisputed facts did not come anywhere

the

dictate

refusal

conclusion

context

a

footnote

for
Court

regarding

matters

the

too.

In

to its representation

summary

judgment,"

concluded

that

Plaintiff

S&N's pleading

states a claim under Exergen . . . S&N cannot prove inequitable
conduct
when a

under
full

the

set

heightened

of

standard

undisputed

facts

are

the allegations in the amended answer."
5 & n.4

(emphasis added).

The

Court

of

Therasense
presented

...

rather

than

PL's Status Report at
then granted Plaintiff's

request for leave to file a second summary judgment motion,

which would involve Defendants'

or

one

inequitable conduct allegations.
13

Nonetheless,

summary

Plaintiff's

judgment

facts."

Far

did

from

brief

not

it.

in

support

present

In

such

a

"full

support

its

challenges

counterclaims.

issue

whether

to

Furthermore,

the

Court

motion

of

for

undisputed

Plaintiff

included

throughout its brief,

Defendants'
Defendants

should deny

its

set

statement,

none of the critical facts it later used,

to

of

inequitable
squarely

Plaintiff's

conduct

raised

motion due

the

to

the shortcomings of Plaintiff's statement of undisputed facts.4
Yet,

in

its

procedural
explain

reply brief,

argument

why

it

did not

with

Local

the

in any way.

had

Plaintiff

Plaintiff did not

failed

request

Rules.

to

address Defendants'

Plaintiff
comply

leave

to

Plaintiff

did not

with

amend
did

Local

its

not

attempt
Rule

brief

ask

to

the

to

56 (B) .
comply

Court

to

exercise its inherent equitable authority to reach the merits of

Plaintiff's

motion,

Succinctly stated,

notwithstanding

Rule

56 (B) .

discretion to overlook violations

a

case

Defendants

in

deficiencies.

Plaintiff did nothing to address its failure

to comply with Local

in

its

which

expressly

Plaintiff
have

4 Indeed,
in
the
Plaintiff's statement of

The
of

has

Court

the

Local

ignored

challenged

is mindful of
Rules.

Local

Plaintiff's

its

However,

Rule

56(B),

failure

to

same
section
that
Defendants
contested
undisputed facts,
Defendants even cited

SwimWays Corp., a case in which the undersigned Judge overlooked a
movant's partial noncompliance with Local Rule 56(B) because the nonmoving party had not raised the issue and the movant's statement of
undisputed facts, though brief, at least included facts addressing the
merits of its arguments.
2014 WL 3615981, at *9.
14

comply with such rule,

and Plaintiff categorically has declined

to explain such failure,
56(B)

if a rule

as

important as Local Rule

is to be anything other than a dead letter,

the Court must

DENY Plaintiff's motion.

IV.

For

the

reasons

set

CONCLUSION

forth

above,

Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment,
of such ruling,
August

14,

2015

contact

entry of
trial

this

ECF No.

341.

DENIES

In light

because

oral

argument

would

The Court DIRECTS

docket

clerk

within

Memorandum Order

to

not

counsel

seven

set

the

aid

in

the

for the parties

(7)

days

date

for

after
the

the

bench

in this matter.

The
Order

the

Court

the Court CANCELS the hearing originally set for

decisional process.
to

the

Clerk

to all

IT

IS

is

REQUESTED

counsel

of

to

send a

copy

of

this

Memorandum

record.

ORDERED.

M.
Mark S. Davis

United States District Judge
Mark S.
UNITED

Norfolk, Virginia
August 7, 2015

15

STATES

Davis
DISTRICT JUDGE