Gojo Industries, Inc. v. Innovative Biodefense, Inc. et al
| Gojo Industries, Inc. |
| Innovative Biodefense, Inc. |
| 1:2015cv02946 |
| April 15, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| XX Out of State |
| Paul A. Crotty |
| Other Fraud |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1125 |
| 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
239
OPINION & ORDER re: 221 MOTION to Stay . filed by Gojo Industries, Inc.. GOJO's motion to stay this proceeding pending resolution of the FDA Action is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the motion at Dkt. 221. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Crotty on 9/16/2019) (ks)
|
|
Filing
126
OPINION & ORDER: The discovery stay is lifted, and the parties should resume discovery. The Court rules as follows on the pending discovery motions: IBD's February 12, 2016 motion for the production of GOJO's formula information (Dkt. 115 ). The motion is DENIED. IBD has failed to demonstrate the relevance of GOJOs formula information to GOJO's claims or IBDs counterclaims. IBD's February 12, 2016 motion opposing the clawback of inadvertently produced documents (Dkt. 116) . The motion is DENIED. IBD's waiver argument fails because the Stipulated Protective Order provides that inadvertently disclosed information "shall not constitute or be deemed a waiver or forfeiture." In accordance with the Protect ive Order, IBD should return or destroy the inadvertently produced documents. If IBD believes any of those documents are not subject to the attorney-client privilege or work product protection, it can raise those claims on the merits and on a docume nt-by document basis.IBD's January 26, 2016 motion to compel production of certain categories of documents (Dkt. 105). Based on GOJOs letter of April 20, 2016, the Court understands that GOJO will produce documents responsive to requests 1, 2, 4-7, 13-15, 17 and 18; but objects to document requests 8, 9, 10, 12 and 16 (Dkt. 125). If, after reviewing the newly produced documents, IBD still believes that GOJO's production is deficient, the parties should meet-and-confer to attempt to r esolve the dispute. Absent resolution, the parties should be prepared to argue the remaining disputes at the conference scheduled for May 12, 2016, at 3:30 pm. At the May 12 conference, the parties should be prepared to discuss any remaining discovery issues and set a date for trial. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Crotty on April 21, 2016) (mov)
|
|
Filing
95
OPINION & ORDER. Defendant's motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED. (As further set forth in this Order) (Signed by Judge Paul A. Crotty on 11/12/2015) (lmb)
|
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 Southern 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.
