TechGuard Security, L.L.C. v. Joyce
Plaintiff: TechGuard Security, L.L.C.
Defendant: James B Joyce
Case Number: 4:2008cv01489
Filed: September 26, 2008
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
Office: Patent Office
County: St. Louis - County
Presiding Judge: Audrey G. Fleissig
Presiding Judge:
Nature of Suit: Plaintiff
Cause of Action: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: 35:145 Patent Infringement
RSS 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
October 20, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 223 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion to strike Defendants motion (Doc. #180) to dismiss or for summary judgment is GRANTED. Defendants motion is untimely and, contrary to Defendants assertion, does not challenge this Court s subject matter jurisdiction, but rather challenges the pleading and evidentiary sufficiency of Plaintiffs claim under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030. The Court notes that under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), it has discretion to, and would, exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims even if the Court dismissedPlaintiffs CFAA claim. [Doc. #218] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants motion to dismiss or alternatively motion for summary judgment based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction is DENIED as moot. [Doc. #180] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants motion to strike Plaintiffs objections in its responses to Defendants requests for admissions shall be RESERVED for ruling, pending subm ission by the parties by 12:00 noon on Thursday, October 21, 2010, of the particular admissions in question and any objections the parties feel require a ruling by the Court. [Doc. #178] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants motion, filed within days of the trial setting, for leave to conduct additional discovery is DENIED. [Doc. #181] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants motion to strike witnesses Josh Restivo, Kevin Kercher, and Annette Blomes is DENIED as moot, in light of Plaintiffs represe ntation at the hearing that it does not intend to call these individuals as witnesses. [Doc. #182] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs general motion in limine topreclude Defendant from offering undisclosed evidence is GRANTED. [Doc. #186] IT IS FU RTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion in limine to preclude Defendant from denying that the computer at issue was used by or for the National Institute of Standards and Technology is DENIED as moot, in light of the agreement reached by the parties on this motion. [Doc. #190] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion in limine to preclude Defendant from offering undisclosed expert testimony is DENIED, as moot, as Defendant does not intend to introduce such evidence. [Doc. #192] IT IS FURTHER OR DERED that Plaintiffs motion in limine to preclude Defendant from introducing evidence related to the legal malpractice case filed by Defendant or the divorce case between Defendant and his ex-wife, with the exception of evidence Plaintiff seeks to f fer of Defendants nondisclosure in the divorce proceedings of a certain patent application, and the state courts ruling as to credibility as to Defendant Joyce, is RESERVED for ruling. With respect to this motion, by 12:00 noon on Thursday, October 2 1, 2010, Plaintiff shall submit to the Court and opposing counsel (1) the divorce court order in question, highlighting that courts finding that Plaintiff seeks to introduce under Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b) as evidence of Defendants character fo r untruthfulness; and (2) the statement by Defendant in the divorce proceeding of his assets that Plaintiff seeks to introduce for the same purpose. By the same deadline, Defendant shall submit to the Court and opposing counsel the allegedly false st atement(s) made by Defendants ex-wife in a proceeding for an order of protection, and the basis for Defendants counsels good faith belief that the statement was false. Each party shall have up to 12:00 noon on Friday, October 22, 2010, to offer any a rgument with respect to the other partys submission on this matter. [Doc. #194] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion in limine to preclude Defendant from offering certain evidence from adult abuse cases between Defendant and his ex-wife is DE NIED as moot, subject to the ruling on the above motion in limine. [Doc. #196] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants motion in limine to exclude reference to Dave Maestas forensic examination of the computer at issue in Counts VIII and IX is DENIED, in light of Plaintiffs representation that it has no electronic or paper documents that it did not produce in response to the relevant request for production byDefendant. Plaintiff is cautioned to discuss the matter with Mr. Maestas, whoseanticipated testimony may be stricken if responsive documents did exist and were not produced. [Doc. #198] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion in limine to preclude Defendant from offering evidence relevant to previously resolved or unrelated claims an d defenses is DENIED as moot, in light of Defendants representation at the hearing that he does not intend to introduce such evidence. [Doc. #199] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion in limine to preclude Defendant from offering evidence rel ated to the financial condition of the parties is GRANTED. [Doc. #201] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion in limine to preclude Defendant from offering evidence related to Josh Restivos former business partner is DENIED as moot, in light of Defendants representation at the hearing that he does not intend to offer such evidence given that Mr. Restivo will not be a witness. [Doc. #203] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion in limine to preclude Defendant from offering evidence rel ated to the personal use of the computer in question by his children and ex-wife shall be RESERVED for ruling, pending the introduction of evidence at trial on the authorized uses of the computer. Defendant shall seek leave of Court at trial before i ntroducing any evidence covered by this motion. [Doc. #205] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants motion in limine to exclude all or part of Plaintiffs Exhibit 26 is RESERVED for ruling until trial when the Court can ascertain whether a proper founda tion for admission of this Exhibit has been laid. [Doc. #206]IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants motion in limine to exclude any documents produced by Plaintiff during this litigation but not identified as an Exhibit is DENIED as moot. [Doc. #210] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for sanctions against Defendant for failing to comply with the Courts Case Management Order is DENIED. [Doc. #215] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that at the start of trial, the parties shall provide the Court with a list identifying all Exhibits that have been stipulated and the objections toany other Exhibits. Signed by Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig on 10/20/10. (JWJ)
August 18, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 163 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, consistent with the above rulings by the Court. Plaintiff shall respond to the discove ry requests required by this Order before August 27, 2010. [Doc. #146] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiff's May 17, 2010 Supplemental Rule 26(A)(1) Disclosures, and alternative request for an extension of the discovery deadline, are DENIED. If Defendant believes that he needs time to conduct additional discovery related to the above-identified issues remaining in this case, due to the Supplemental Rule 26(A)(1) Disclosures, he may request time, setting forth the specific discovery needed. [Doc. #144] Signed by Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig on 8/18/2010. (NCL)
June 16, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 161 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Count II of Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint and Count II of Defendants Counterclaim are dismissed for failure to state claims upon which relief may be granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs m otion to dismiss, with prejudice, Counts IV, V, VI, VII, and X of the Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED. [Doc. #142] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion to strike portions of Defendants response to the Order to Show Cause is DENIED. [Doc. #158] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion to amend the Case Management Order by advancing the trial date is DENIED. [Doc. #143] 158 142 143 Signed by Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig on 6/14/10. (CLA)
May 7, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 141 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. This matter is before the Court on Defendant James Joyces motion to remove the law firm of Gallop, Johnson, Neuman (GJN) as counsel for Plaintiff TechGuard Security, L.L.C., (TechGuard) due to an alleged conflict of interest. Oral argument on the motion was held on the record on May 6, 2010. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant motion to remove Plaintiffs counsel as counsel of record is DENIED. See Order for further details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 5/7/2010. (CBL)
April 27, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 137 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on Counts III and XI of its Second Amended Complaint, and Counts III, IV, and V of Defendants Counterclaim is DENIED as to (i) damages on Count III of the Second Am ended Complaint, (ii) the request to enjoin further breach of the Rights Agreement in Count XI of the Second Amended Complaint, and (iii) the request to enjoin harassment in Count XI of the Second Amended Complaint; and is GRANTED in all other regard s, consistent with the conclusions above. [Doc. #70] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for final judgment onCounts I, III, and XI of its Second Amended Complaint, and on Counts I, III, IV, and V of Defendants Counterclaim is DENIED. [Doc. #74] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion to amend the Case Management Order in this case is DENIED as moot. [Doc. #100] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion to strike portions of Defendants affidavit is DENIED as moot. [Doc. #128] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties joint motion to extend thediscovery deadline to 20 days following the Courts ruling on pending motions is GRANTED to the extent that the discovery deadline shall be extended to May 17, 2010. 128 74 70 100 136 ( Discovery Completion due by 5/17/2010.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 4/27/10. (CLA)
December 29, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 110 ORDER re: 108 ORDERED that Defendant's motion (Doc. #108) for reconsideration of the Court's Order of December 28, 2009, is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 12/29/09. (CEL)
December 28, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 106 ORDER re 76 ORDERED that Defendant's motion to file an amended answer is GRANTED. [Doc. #76]. Signed by Magistrate Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 12/28/09. (CEL)
December 14, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 93 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the request of Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff James Joyce to cancel Court-ordered mediation is DENIED, as is Joyce's alternative request that Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant be order to pay for the medication 89 . Both parties to this dispute are reminded of their obligation to mediate in good faith. See Nick v. Morgan's Foods, Inc., 270 F.3d 590 (8th Cir. 2001). Signed by Magistrate Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 12/14/09. (TRC)
September 18, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 66 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 42 , 29 , 14 , 16 , 33 ORDERED that Joyce's motion to stay this action is DENIED. [Doc. #33] FURTHER ORDERED that Joyce's motion for summary judgment on Counts I, III, X, and XI of Plaintiff's second amende d complaint is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, consistent with the rulings of the Court herein. [Doc. #16] FURTHER ORDERED that Joyce's motion to stay TechGuard's motion for summary judgment on Count I of its second amended complaint is DENIED. [Doc. #42] FURTHER ORDERED that TechGuard's motion for summary judgment on Count I of its second amended complaint is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, consistent with the above rulings by the Court. [Doc. #29] FURTHER ORDERED that Jo yce's motion to dismiss Counts VIII, IX, and X of the second amended complaint is GRANTED as to the request for mental anguish damages in Count X, and DENIED in all other regards. Joyce's alternative motion for a more definite statement is also DENIED. [Doc. #14]. Signed by Magistrate Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 9/18/09. (CEL)
June 26, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 61 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's request for an independent psychiatric examination of Defendant is DENIED 41 . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's request for time to file an amended reply regarding the above motion is DENIED as the Court perceives no reason why Plaintiff could not determine which law applied to its present motion, before this Courtrules on other pending matters 49 . Signed by Mag Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 6/26/09. (TRC)
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 Missouri Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: TechGuard Security, L.L.C. v. Joyce
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: TechGuard Security, L.L.C.
Represented By: Don V. Kelly
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 ]
Defendant: James B Joyce
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?