MICROSOFT CORPORATION v. SOFTICLE.COM et al
| MICROSOFT CORPORATION |
| SOFTICLE.COM and DOES 1-3 |
| 2:2016cv02762 |
| May 16, 2016 |
| US District Court for the District of New Jersey |
| Newark Office |
| Hudson |
| Madeline C. Arleo |
| Steven C. Mannion |
| Copyrights |
| 17 U.S.C. ยง 501 |
| None |
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
228
LETTER ORDER/OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Steven C. Mannion on 8/30/2018. (sm)
|
|
Filing
69
OPINION/ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE that Defendants, Aymen Abunamous and Softicle shall file a written submission (affidavit or declaration) with the Court within 14 days showing cause why they should not be sanctioned for failing to provide their initial d isclosures and for failing to comply with the Courts orders and rules; that Plaintiff, Microsoft Corporations informal motion to compel Defendants, Aymen Abunamous and Softicle to provide further responses to interrogatories 7, 8, 9, and 12 and re quests for production 1 and 2 are granted. Defendants, Aymen Abunamous and Softicle shall serve their amended discovery responses consistent with this Order and the Courts opinion within 14 days. The amended response shall include a signature from Mr. Bahgat for the objections posed to all interrogatories as required by the Federal Rules. Signed by Magistrate Judge Steven C. Mannion on 10/2/17. (DD, )
|
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 New Jersey 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.
