Specialty Auto Parts U.S.A., Inc. v. Holley Performance Products, Inc.

Justia Dockets & Filings Sixth Circuit Kentucky Western District Specialty Auto Parts U.S.A., Inc. v. Holley Performance Products, Inc.

Specialty Auto Parts U.S.A., Inc. v. Holley Performance Products, Inc.

Plaintiff:	Specialty Auto Parts USA, Inc.
Defendant:	Holley Performance Products, Inc.
Case Number:	1:2017cv00147
Filed:	August 14, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
Office:	Bowling Green Office
County:	XX US, Outside State
Presiding Judge:	Greg N. Stivers
Nature of Suit:	Other Contract
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1330
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
March 21, 2022	Filing 160 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Signed by Judge David J. Hale on 3/21/2022: Specialty's 141 motion to strike is DENIED. cc: Counsel (DLW)
April 20, 2020	Filing 96 OPINION AND ORDER Signed by Magistrate Judge Lanny King on 4/20/2020. For the foregoing reasons, Holley's Motion for Protective Order (DN 88 ) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Court grants the Motion to the extent it seeks pro tection for certain documents and requests those documents be designated as "Attorneys' Eyes Only" ("AEO"), denies the Motion regarding the procedure Holley seeks for sealing documents, and denies the Motion as to the spe cific language Holley seeks regarding remedies for breach of the Order. The Court declines to enter either of Holley's proposed protective orders. The parties shall be subject to the following protective order [as set forth]. cc: Counsel (CDF)

Date Filed

Document Text

March 21, 2022

Filing 160 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Signed by Judge David J. Hale on 3/21/2022: Specialty's 141 motion to strike is DENIED. cc: Counsel (DLW)

April 20, 2020

Filing 96 OPINION AND ORDER Signed by Magistrate Judge Lanny King on 4/20/2020. For the foregoing reasons, Holley's Motion for Protective Order (DN 88 ) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Court grants the Motion to the extent it seeks pro tection for certain documents and requests those documents be designated as "Attorneys' Eyes Only" ("AEO"), denies the Motion regarding the procedure Holley seeks for sealing documents, and denies the Motion as to the spe cific language Holley seeks regarding remedies for breach of the Order. The Court declines to enter either of Holley's proposed protective orders. The parties shall be subject to the following protective order [as set forth]. cc: Counsel (CDF)

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 Kentucky Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Specialty Auto Parts U.S.A., Inc. v. Holley Performance Products, Inc.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Holley Performance Products, Inc.
Represented By:	Michael A. Cox
Represented By:	Dorit N. Gertsberg
Represented By:	Todd J. Ohlms
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 ]
Plaintiff: Specialty Auto Parts USA, Inc.
Represented By:	Howard B. Iwrey
Represented By:	Cale A. Johnson
Represented By:	Christie A. Moore
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.

Why Is My Information Online?