Gerber Scientific, Inc. v. Roland DGA Corp
3:2006cv02024 |
December 18, 2006 |
US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
New Haven Office |
Christopher F. Droney |
Patent |
No cause code entered |
Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 412 ORDER re 312 motion to compel. The motion is granted in part and denied in part. See attached order. Signed by Judge Alfred V. Covello on February 28, 2013. (Gentile, N.) |
Filing 253 RULING granting in part and denying in part 229 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney on 11/16/2011. (Gothers, M.)(6 pages) |
Filing 226 RULING granting 195 Motion for Reconsideration re 193 Order. Signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney on 5/27/2011. (Gothers, M.)(5 pages) |
Filing 179 RULING denying 106 Motion for Sanctions. Gerber's motion to compel is with respect to the Hastings documents is GRANTED. Gerber's motion to compel the deposition of Williamson is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney on 9/20/2010. (Gothers, M.)(12 pages) |
Filing 149 ORDER granting in part and denying in part defendant's motion 139 to compel. See attached ruling. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 1/27/10. (Constantine, A.) |
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 Connecticut 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
Search for this case: Gerber Scientific, Inc. v. Roland DGA Corp | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.