Scienton Technologies, Inc. et al v. Computer Associates International Inc.
| NI Group, Inc., Scienton Technologies, Inc. and Secure-It, Inc. |
| Computer Associates International Inc. |
| Jack G. Stern |
| Holly K. Kulka, Jennifer Lee Larson and Lenor Marquis Segal |
| David A. Scheffel |
| Philip R. Forlenza |
| 2:2004cv02652 |
| June 25, 2004 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Central Islip Office |
| E. Thomas Boyle |
| Joanna Seybert |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract |
| 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
589
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff's motion for a new trial on compensatory damages only is DENIED. (Docket Entry 551.) The Court invites Plaintiff to file a revised prejudgment interest calculation. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 9/29/2017. C/ECF (Valle, Christine)
|
|
Filing
573
MEMORANDUM & ORDER finding as moot 551 Motion for New Trial; finding as moot 554 Motion for Damages; granting 557 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law; Defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law (Docket Entry 557) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's motions (Docket Entries 551, 554) are DISMISSED AS MOOT. Also, with the exception of the October 20th transcript, the remaining trial transcripts are currently unavailable on the Electronic Case Filing System. To ensure complet eness of the electronic record, Defendant is ORDERED to file the remaining portions of the transcript on the docket. After Defendant has done so, the Clerk of the Court is directed to mark this matter CLOSED. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 5/17/2016. C/ECF (Valle, Christine)
|
|
Filing
358
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 356 Motion for Discovery: The Court will extend expert discovery as proposed by plaintiff's correspondence dated May 21, 2013 at 1, items (1)-(4). Defendants are directed to provide updated revenue for the period April 2010 through March 2013 no later than June 30, 2013. Thus, all expert disclosure shall be completed no later than October 31, 2013. A joint pre-trial order shall be filed on or before November 28, 2013. The final conference s cheduled for June 26, 2013 is rescheduled to December 10, 2013 at 11:00 a.m., by telephone. Plaintiff's counsel is directed to initiate the conference call and to have all parties on the line prior to connecting the court. This is the final extension in this action. In all other respects, this application is denied for the reasons set forth in defendant's opposition dated May 22, 2013. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge E. Thomas Boyle on 5/23/2013. (Minerva, Deanna)
|
|
Filing
354
MEMORANDUM & ORDER denying 348 Motion for Reconsideration - As Plaintiffs have failed to present any new evidence or controlling law that might be expected to alter the Court's Summary Judgment Order, Plaintiffs' motion for reconsider ation is DENIED. Further, the Court previously granted the parties fourteen days from the date of the Summary Judgment Order to show cause why that document should remain under seal. More than fourteen days have passed, and the Court has yet to receive any briefing on the issue from either party. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is directed to UNSEAL the Summary Judgment Order at Docket Entry 347. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 5/1/2013. C/ECF (Valle, Christine)
|
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 York 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.
