AutoLotto, Inc. v. Steffen
| Travis Steffen |
| AutoLotto, Inc. and Does 1 through 20 |
| 1:2021mc00466 |
| October 29, 2021 |
| US District Court for the District of Delaware |
| Colm F Connolly |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 1, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 NOTICE of Withdrawal by AutoLotto, Inc. re #1 MOTION to Quash Defendant AutoLotto, Inc.'s Notice of Withdrawal of Motion to Quash Plaintiff Travis Steffen's Subpoena Duces Tecum on Non-Party Trident Acquisition Corporation and Transfer Venue of Subpoena (DiGiovanni, Francis) |
| Case Assigned to Judge Colm F. Connolly. Please include the initials of the Judge (CFC) after the case number on all documents filed. (nms) |
| Remark: Case submitted for routine judicial case assignment. (twk) |
| Filing 5 Brett D. Young's DECLARATION re (D.I. #1 ) MOTION to Quash by AutoLotto, Inc.. (twk) |
| Filing 4 Ryan Dickinson's DECLARATION re (D.I. #1 ) MOTION to Quash by AutoLotto, Inc.. (twk) |
| Filing 3 OPENING BRIEF in Support re (D.I. #1 ) MOTION to Quash filed by AutoLotto, Inc. Answering Brief/Response due date per Local Rules is 11/12/2021. (twk) |
| Filing 2 Rule 7.1.1 Statement. |
| Filing 1 MOTION to Quash Subpoena - filed by AutoLotto, Inc. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order, #2 Certificate of Service)(twk) |
Access additional case information on PACER
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 Delaware 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.
