camLine USA Inc. v. Ocean Semiconductor LLC
| camLine USA Inc. |
| Ocean Semiconductor LLC |
| 1:2022mi00012 |
| February 14, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia |
| Steve C Jones |
| John K Larkins |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 3, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Miscellaneous Case Terminated. All future filingsto occur in Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-910-SCJ-JKL. (adg) |
| Filing 5 Joint MOTION to Consolidate Cases by camLine USA Inc.. (Crosby, L.) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel Arthur Kent on behalf of Ocean Semiconductor LLC (Kent, Daniel) |
| Filing 3 RESPONSE in Opposition re #1 MOTION for Protective Order MOTION to Quash Subpoena filed by Ocean Semiconductor LLC. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Peter Mazur, #2 Exhibit A - 2022-02-14 camLine USA Response to Subpoena - Ocean v. Nvidia, #3 Exhibit B - camLine company profile, #4 Exhibit C - www.camline.com Contact page, #5 Exhibit D - Andrew Lu LinkedIn profile page, #6 Exhibit E - Samuel Borsutzky LinkedIn profile page, #7 Exhibit F - 2022-01-24 NVIDIAs Responses and Objections to Oceans First Set of Requests for Production)(Kent, Daniel) |
Filing 2
ORDER directing that Plaintiff and Defendant file any responses to the Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Subpoena on Non-Party camLine USA Inc. by no later than February 25, 2022. The failure to file a response will indicate that there is no opposition to the motion. Respondent may file a reply no later than March 2, 2022. Compliance with the subpoena is STAYED pending a ruling on Respondent's motion. Counsel for Respondent is to provide a copy of this order, via electronic mail, to Plaintiff's counsel and Defendant's counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge John K. Larkins, III on 02/16/2022. (ddm)
|
| Submission of #1 MOTION for Protective Order; and MOTION to Quash Subpoena on Non-Party camLine USA Inc., to Magistrate Judge John K. Larkins. (eop) |
| Filing 1 MOTION for Protective Order; and MOTION to Quash Subpoena on Non-Party camLine USA Inc. with Brief In Support by camLine USA Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Brief, #2 Exhibit -A -Subpoena, #3 Exhibit -B -Complaint, #4 Exhibit -c -Declaration of Andrew Lu, #5 Civil Cover Sheet)(eop) |
| Filing Fee Paid: $ 49.00, receipt number AGANDC-11592047 (eop) Modified Payment Date on 2/16/2022 (eop). |
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 Georgia Northern 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: camLine USA Inc. v. Ocean Semiconductor LLC | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Respondent: Ocean Semiconductor LLC | |
| Represented By: | Daniel Arthur Kent |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: camLine USA Inc. | |
| Represented By: | Elexa Elpis Diktas |
| Represented By: | L. Clint Crosby |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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.
