Manufacturing Automation and Software Systems, Inc. v. Kristopher Hughes et al
| Manufacturing Automation and Software Systems, Inc. |
| DOES, Kristopher Hughes, James Huysentruyt, InformaTrac, Inc., Edward Nugent and PcVue, Inc. |
| 2:2016cv08962 |
| December 2, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Michael R. Wilner |
| Copyright |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
433
JUDGMENT by Judge Christina A. Snyder. Pursuant to the Special Verdicts rendered by the jury in the above-entitled matter on February 14, 2019, Dkt. Nos. 410 and 411 , the Court hereby enters judgment in favor of defendants Kristopher Hugh es, James Huysentruyt, InformaTrac, Inc., Edward Nugent, and PcVue, Inc. Plaintiff Manufacturing Automation & Software Systems, Inc. takes nothing. Defendants may move for costs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) and Central District of California Local Rule 54-1. (lom)
|
|
Filing
402
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Christina A. Snyder: RE ADMISSIBILITY OF COPIES OF PLAINTIFFS CERTIFICATES OF COPYRGIHT. On February 12, 2019, plaintiff Manufacturing Automation and Software Systems, Inc. moved to admit into evidence copies of its certificates of copyright, marked as exhibits 91, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223. Defendants Kristopher Hughes, James Huysentruyt, Informatrac, Inc., PcVue, Inc., and Edward Nugent objected on the basis that they were copies of the copyright certificates, as opposed to the original public documents. The Court hereby admits these exhibits. (lc). Modified on 2/14/2019 (lc).
|
|
Filing
256
REDACTED MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder: RE DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 178 , DEFENDANTS MOTION TO EXCLUDE PLAINTIFFS EXPERT 181 , DEFENDANTS EX PARTE APPLICATIONS 217 , 218 . The Court DENIES defendants m otion to exclude plaintiffs expert witness, and DENIES plaintiffs ex parte applications to strike the Turner and Laykin Declarations. The Court DENIES defendants motion for summary judgment as to plaintiffs first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth copyright infringement claims. The Court DENIES defendants motion for summary judgment as to plaintiffs trade secrets misappropriation claim, and DENIES defendants motion for summary judgment as to plaintiffs accounting claim. (lc). Modified on 6/26/2018 .(lc).
|
|
Filing
219
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder: DEFENDANTS EX PARTE APPLICATIONS 213 , 216 , 217 , 218 . On May 16, 2018, defendants in the instant matter filed four ex parte applications requesting the Court (1) to strike plaintiffs untimel y opposition to defendants motion for partial summary judgment; (2) to strike plaintiffs opposition to defendants motion toexclude; and (3) to strike the Declarations of Brian Turner and (4) Erik Laykin filed in support of plaintiffs opposition to de fendants motion for partial summary judgment. Dkts. 213, 216218. Given plaintiffs apparently untimely filing, the Court hereby continues the hearing on defendants motion for partial summary judgment and motion to exclude from June 4, 2018 to June 18, 2018. Defendants shall file their reply in support of the motion for partial summary judgment on or before June 4, 2018. In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES defendants ex parte application to strike plaintiffs opposition as moot. With respec t to defendants second ex parte application to strike plaintiffs opposition to defendants motion to exclude, the Court DENIES defendants request to strike and GRANTS defendants request to file a reply brief. Defendants may file a reply not to exceed ten pages on or before May 25, 2018.The Court hereby takes defendants third and fourth ex parte applications to strike the Declarations of Brian Turner and Erik Laykin under submission. Plaintiff may file a reply to each application, not to exceed five pages, on or before June 4, 2018. Neither side shall seek further ex parte relief from the Court. (lc) .Modified on 5/18/2018 .(lc).
|
|
Filing
194
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder: DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS FOR INTENTIONAL SPOLIATION 154 . The Court hereby DENIES defendants motion to dismiss for spoliation of evidence. All further matters concerning compliance with this order shall be referred to Judge Stevenson. The following dates shall be continued sixty (60) days: 1. Fact Discovery Cut-Off is extended to June 29, 2018 for the limited purposes of the discovery permitted herein;2. Pretrial Conference/Hearing on Motions in Limine (11:00 A.M.) iscontinued from June 18, 2018 to August 20, 2018; and 3. Jury Trial (9:30 A.M.) is continued from July 10, 2018 to September 11, 2018. (lc)
|
|
Filing
80
AMENDED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson re Stipulation for Protective Order 79 (See order for details) (rh)
|
|
Filing
67
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson. Pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and based on the parties' Stipulated Protective Order ("Stipulation") 66 filed on August 2, 2017, t he terms of the protective order to which the parties have agreed are adopted as a protective order of this Court (which generally shall govern the pretrial phase of this action) except to the extent, as set forth below, that those terms have been modified by the Court's amendment of paragraphs 1, 6.2, 6.3, and 7.4(c) of the Stipulation. (SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION) (gr)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
