Source Production & Equipment Co., Inc. et al v. Schehr et al
| Source Production & Equipment Co., Inc., Aspect Technology Limited, SpecMed, LLC, SPEC MED Intellectual Property, LLC and SPEC Intellectual Property, LLC |
| Kevin J. Schehr, Isoflex USA, Isoflex Radioactive LLC, Richard H. McKannay, Jr. and Unidentified Parties |
| 2:2016cv17528 |
| December 16, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana |
| New Orleans Office |
| St Charles |
| Janis van Meerveld |
| Sarah S. Vance |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 18 U.S.C. ยง 1030 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
380
ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS ORDERED that the IUSA Defendants are awarded $64,070.95 in attorney's fees on their motion for attorney's fees and costs 355 that was previously granted. Signed by Judge Barry W Ashe on 10/15/2020.(am)
|
|
Filing
367
ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS ORDERED that the IUSA Defendants' motion for attorney's fees and costs 355 is GRANTED as to awarding them 25% of the amount of fees the Court ultimately deems reasonable under the loadstar method. IT IS FUR THER ORDERED that the IUSA Defendants' motion for in camera review of their unredacted attorney time records 356 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the IUSA Defendants produce to Plaintiffs within 15 days of this Order their redacted attorney time records, as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Barry W Ashe on 8/18/2020. (am)
|
|
Filing
352
ORDER AND REASONS: ORDERED that IUSA and McKannay's 326 motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs' LUTPA claims against them are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' final 322 motion for partial summary judgment on IUSA's counterclaim (except as to the BDX commission) is GRANTED, and IUSA's open-account claim related to the DU inserts is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Barry W Ashe on 3/31/2020. (clc)
|
|
Filing
316
ORDER AND REASONS - IT IS ORDERED that Schehr's motion for partial summary judgment seeking dismissal of Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary claim related to the Sr-89 deal (Rec. Doc. 152 ) is GRANTED and that claim is dismissed with prejudice . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Schehr's motion for partial summary judgment seeking dismissal of Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty, intentional misrepresentation, and fraud claims related to his 2015 bonus and cashing in his PTO (Rec. Doc. 160 ) is GRANTED, and those claims are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Barry W Ashe on 11/1/2019. (sa)
|
|
Filing
315
ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS ORDERED that Schehr's 164 motion for partial summary judgment seeking dismissal of Plaintiffs' CFAA claims is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief and monetary damages for allegedly lost data. The motion is DENIED as to Plaintiffs' claim for monetary damages related to the forensic evaluation of the laptop. Signed by Judge Barry W Ashe on 10/23/2019. (am)
|
|
Filing
312
ORDER AND REASONS: ORDERED that Defendants' 140 Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' tradesecret misappropriation claims for failure to specify the trade secrets is GRANTED as to the trade secrets identified by letters (j), (l), ( m), and (n), and those claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The motion is otherwise DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' 162 , 163 Motions for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' trade-secret misappropriation claims for failure to prove misappropriation are GRANTED as to the trade secrets identified by letters (a), (f), (g), and (i) and Plaintiffs' claims under DTSA, LUTSA, and LUTPA related to those trade secrets are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The IsoRad Defendants' 162 is DENIED as to Schehr with respect to the trade secrets identified by letters (b) and (h). FURTHER ORDERED that IsoRad's 162 Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' trade-secret misappropriation claims is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs 9; DTSA, LUTSA, and LUTPA claims against IsoRad, as related to trade secrets, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. FURTHER ORDERED that the IUSA Defendants' 163 Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' trade-secret misappropriation claims is G RANTED, and Plaintiffs' DTSA, LUTSA, and LUTPA claims against the IUSA Defendants, as related to trade secrets, areDISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. FURTHER ORDERED that Schehr' 155 Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' trade-secret mis appropriation claims for failure to prove damages is DENIED with respect to alleged trade secrets (b) and (h). The motion was rendered moot as to all other Defendants because the Court found that there is no evidence that they misappropriated any of Plaintiffs' alleged trade secrets. Signed by Judge Barry W Ashe on 9/30/2019. (clc)
|
|
Filing
278
ORDER AND REASONS - IT IS ORDERED that IUSA's Motion for Summary Judgment on its counterclaim against SPEC (Rec. Doc. 154 ) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that SPEC's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on IUSA's counterclaim against it (Rec. Doc. 253 ) is DENIED IN PART, as to IUSA's open-account claim regarding the $3,139 commission, and GRANTED in all other respects. Signed by Judge Barry W Ashe on 4/24/2019. (sa)
|
|
Filing
277
ORDER AND REASONS GRANTING 215 Motion in Limine to strike Hedger's expert testimony. Signed by Judge Barry W Ashe on 4/22/19. (clc)
|
|
Filing
248
ORDER AND REASONS - IT IS ORDERED that Counter-Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment on Schehr's defamation claim as it relates to statements allegedly made to Frazier (Rec. Doc. 149 ) is GRANTED and that claim is DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Counter-Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment on Schehr's breach-of-oral-contract claim is DENIED. Signed by Judge Barry W Ashe on 4/4/2019. (sa)
|
|
Filing
97
ORDER AND REASONS granting in part and denying in part 76 , 82 , 86 , 87 Motions to Dismiss defendant Kevin Schehr's counterclaims; The counterclaim for revendicatory relief against Dicharry and Kusy and the counterclaim for intentional interference with a contract against Kusy are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 12/28/2017. (blg)
|
|
Filing
53
ORDER AND REASONS granting in part and denying in part 44 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; and 45 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS defendants' motions to dismiss w ith respect to plaintiffs' conversion claim against Isoflex USA, Isoflex Radioactive, and McKannay, as well as plaintiffs' conversion claim against Schehr to the extent plaintiffs seek to recover the value of their trade secrets. The Court otherwise DENIES defendants' motions to dismiss. The Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE plaintiffs' conversion claim against Isoflex USA, Isoflex Radioactive, and McKannay, as well as plaintiffs' conversion claim against Schehr to the extent plaintiffs seek to recover the value of their trade secrets. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 8/29/2017. (cg)
|
|
Filing
14
ORDER AND REASONS DENYING 3 Emergency MOTION to Expedite Discovery filed by plaintiffs.. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 1/4/17.(jjs)
|
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 Louisiana Eastern 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.
