Supernal, LLC v. Rotating Composite Technologies, LLC
| Supernal, LLC |
| Rotating Composite Technologies, LLC |
| 1:2022cv01449 |
| November 3, 2022 |
| U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware |
| Maryellen Noreika |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 15, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 19 Joint STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for Defendant to Move, Answer, or Otherwise Respond to the Complaint to February 3, 2023 - filed by Supernal, LLC. (Dudash, Amy) |
SO ORDERED re #19 Joint STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for Defendant to Move, Answer, or Otherwise Respond to the Complaint to February 3, 2023 (Set/Reset Answer Deadlines: Rotating Composite Technologies, LLC answer due 2/3/2023). ORDERED by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 12/15/2022. (dlw)
|
| Pro Hac Vice Attorney Julie S. Goldemberg, Eric Kraeutler, and Natalie A. Bennett for Supernal, LLC added for electronic noticing. Pursuant to Local Rule 83.5 (d)., Delaware counsel shall be the registered users of CM/ECF and shall be required to file all papers. (mkr) |
| Filing 18 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Eric Kraeutler, Natalie Bennett and Julie S. Goldemberg - filed by Supernal, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Certification of Eric Kraeutler, #2 Certification of Natalie Bennett, #3 Certification of Julie S. Goldemberg)(Dudash, Amy) |
| Filing 17 REDACTED VERSION of #2 Complaint, 16 Oral Order,,, by Supernal, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit 6, #7 Exhibit 7, #8 Exhibit 8, #9 Exhibit 9, #10 Exhibit 10, #11 Exhibit 11, #12 Exhibit 12, #13 13)(Dudash, Amy) |
|
SO ORDERED re #18 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Eric Kraeutler, Natalie Bennett and Julie S. Goldemberg filed by Supernal, LLC. ORDERED by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 12/6/2022. (dlw)
|
|
Filing 16
ORAL ORDER re #12 SEALED Declaration - Having reviewed the SEALED declaration and proposed redactions to Exhibits 6, 8, and 11-13, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's request for limited redactions to Exhibits 6, 8 and 11-13 of the Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff has shown that its interest in secrecy in the redacted information outweighs the presumptive right of public access. Specifically, through the declaration submitted, Plaintiff has demonstrated that disclosure of the redacted information will work a clearly, defined serious competitive injury to Plaintiff. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before 12/7/2022, Plaintiff shall file a redacted version of the complaint and exhibits so the complete redacted version appears in one docket entry. ORDERED by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 12/2/2022. (dlw)
|
| Filing 15 REDACTED VERSION of #12 Declaration by Supernal, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 6, #2 Exhibit 8, #3 Exhibit 11, #4 Exhibit 12, #5 Exhibit 13)(Dudash, Amy) Modified on 11/28/2022 (dlw). (Main Document 15 replaced on 11/28/2022) (dlw). |
| CORRECTING ENTRY: The main document at D.I. 15 has been replaced on the docket at the request of counsel. (dlw) |
|
SO ORDERED re #14 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME to move, answer, or otherwise respond to Complaint to January 6, 2023 (Set/Reset Answer Deadlines: Rotating Composite Technologies, LLC answer due 1/6/2023). ORDERED by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 11/28/2022. (dlw)
|
| Filing 14 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME to respond to Complaint to January 6, 2023 - filed by Supernal, LLC. (Bomar, Kelsey) |
| Filing 13 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Supernal, LLC.Rotating Composite Technologies, LLC served on 11/8/2022, answer due 11/29/2022. (Dudash, Amy) |
| Filing 12 [SEALED] DECLARATION of John A. Kelly in Support of Supernal, LLC's Proposed Redactions to Exhibits 6, 8, and 11-13 re 11 Oral Order by Supernal, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 6, #2 Exhibit 8, #3 Exhibit 11, #4 Exhibit 12, #5 Exhibit 13)(Dudash, Amy) Modified on 11/18/2022 (dlw). |
|
Filing 11
ORAL ORDER re #8 MOTION for Reargument - Although the Court believes that the original ruling was correct based on the representations made, it appears from the recent filings, however, that some of the information may be confidential notwithstanding Plaintiff's original failure to make the requisite showing to seal the information. THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. On or before Friday, November 18, 2022 at 5:00 p.m., Plaintiff shall provide the Court with the proposed redactions in a format where the Court is able to see the information Plaintiff proposes to be redacted (e.g., the text is highlighted and not blacked out). For each requested redaction, plaintiff shall make an independent showing that the requested redaction is appropriate. To be clear a generic statement and declaration such as what has been provided to date will NOT suffice. ORDERED by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 11/16/2022. (dlw)
|
| Filing 10 DECLARATION of John A. Kelly re #9 MEMORANDUM in Support by Supernal, LLC. (Dudash, Amy) Modified on 11/10/2022 (dlw). |
| Filing 9 MEMORANDUM in Support re #8 MOTION for Reargument re 5 Oral Order,, filed by Supernal, LLC.Answering Brief/Response due date per Local Rules is 11/28/2022. (Dudash, Amy) |
| Filing 8 MOTION for Reargument re 5 Oral Order,, - filed by Supernal, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Dudash, Amy) |
| Filing 7 DECLARATION re 5 Oral Order,, by Supernal, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Redacted Exhibit 1, #2 Redacted Exhibit 3, #3 Redacted Exhibit 4, #4 Redacted Exhibit 5)(Dudash, Amy) |
| Case Assigned to Judge Maryellen Noreika. Please include the initials of the Judge (MN) after the case number on all documents filed. (rjb) |
| Filing 6 REDACTED VERSION of #2 Complaint, by Supernal, LLC. (Dudash, Amy) |
| Remark: Case submitted for routine judicial assignment. (vfm) |
|
Filing 5
ORAL ORDER: The motion to seal (D.I. #1 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Exhibits 6-8 and 11-13 are not technical and are not the sorts of documents the disclosure of which will work a serious harm to either party. They are unsealed. The Plaintiff is ORDERED to make a good faith effort at redacting only the portion of the complaint that must be redacted, and to file that version within 24 hours. Exhibits 1 and 3-5 may be filed under seal. Within seven days, Plaintiff is to file redacted versions of them with such declarations from Plaintiffs employees as are necessary to justify the redactions. Ordered by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 11/3/2022. (nms)
|
| Filing 4 Disclosure Statement pursuant to Rule 7.1: identifying Corporate Parent Hyundai Motor Company, Corporate Parent Kia Corporation, Corporate Parent Hyundai Mobis Co., Ltd. for Supernal, LLC filed by Supernal, LLC. (vfm) |
| Filing 3 Notice, Consent and Referral forms re: U.S. Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (vfm) |
| Filing 2 [SEALED] COMPLAINT filed against Rotating Composite Technologies, LLC ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number 86.) - filed by Supernal, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit 6, #7 Exhibit 7, #8 Exhibit 8, #9 Exhibit 9, #10 Exhibit 10, #11 Exhibit 11, #12 Exhibit 12, #13 Exhibit 13, #14 Civil Cover Sheet)(vfm) |
| Filing 1 [SEALED] MOTION for Leave to File Under Seal - filed by Supernal, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order) (vfm) |
| Remark: Exit electronic and paper copies to duty Judge RGA. (vfm) |
| No Summons Issued. (vfm) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
