Lokai Holdings LLC, v. Twin Tiger USA LLC, et al
| Lokai Holdings LLC, |
| Twin Tiger USA LLC, Twin Tiger World Markets Ltd., Rory Coppock and Troy Coppock |
| 1:2015cv09363 |
| November 30, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| New York |
| Andrew L. Carter |
| Trademark |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1051 |
| 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
248
OPINION AND ORDER re: 174 MOTION to Dismiss Defendant Twin Tiger USA LLC's 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th Counterclaims. filed by Lokai Holdings LLC,. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant's motion to dismiss the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th Counterclaims and motion to strike the second affirmative defense are both GRANTED. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr on 2/6/2018) (rj)
|
|
Filing
154
OPINION AND ORDER re: 130 LETTER MOTION to Compel Lokai Holdings, LLC to Produce Documents For In Camera Review filed by Rory Coppock, Twin Tiger USA LLC, Troy Coppock, Twin Tiger World Markets Ltd.; 99 LETTER MOTION to Compel Deposition of Steven Izen and for Sanctions filed by Rory Coppock, Twin Tiger USA LLC, Troy Coppock, Twin Tiger World Markets Ltd.; 141 LETTER MOTION to Compel Shadow Public Relations, Inc. to appear and produce filed by Rory Coppock, Twin Tiger USA LLC, Troy Coppock, Twin Tiger World Markets Ltd.; 134 LETTER MOTION for Conference filed by Rory Coppock, Twin Tiger USA LLC, Troy Coppock, Twin Tiger World Markets Ltd.; 137 LETTER MOTION to Compel Steven I zen to Appear filed by Rory Coppock, Twin Tiger USA LLC, Troy Coppock, Twin Tiger World Markets Ltd.; 138 LETTER MOTION for Discovery seeking Protective Order re: Izen deposition filed by Lokai Holdings LLC; 129 LETTER MOTION for Discovery re: divestment of jurisdiction and standing concerning patent claims filed by Lokai Holdings LLC. It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff is directed, once again, to produce Izen (or an alternate Rule 30(b)(6) witness) for three hours of co ntinued deposition questioning by Defendants. This continued deposition shall be conducted within 30 days of the date of this Order, on a date to be agreed by the parties; and as further set forth herein. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plain tiff's motion to quash the subpoenas served on its counsel is granted in part and denied in part, as follows: No later than one week from the date of this Order, Plaintiff is directed to provide to this Court, for in camera review, all email com munications listed on pages 5-7 of Defendants' letter to the Court of April 10, 2017 (Dkt. 130), to the extent such emails (a) are from Izen, (b) are to Izen (either directly or as a copy recipient), or ( c) reference any statements made by lzen relating to the date(s) of the bracelets' distribution, sale, or other potential first use in commerce; and as further set forth herein. It is hereby ORDERED that, to the extent that the parties still have a dispute regarding the adequacy of P laintiff's responses: Defendants may, within one week of the date of this Order, file a letter motion to compel. Any such motion should attach or quote the specific demands and responses at issue, summarize the parties' efforts to resolve o r narrow the disputes, and explain why the requested information is relevant to the claims or defenses asserted in this case and proportional to the needs of the case. Plaintiff may have one week to file an opposition to the motion. Defendants may have two-days to file a reply. It is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' motion to compel compliance is granted in part and denied in part, as follows: This Court will not reject Defendants' motion to compel compliance on the procedural groun ds raised by Shadow, but rather exercises its discretion to consider the motion on its merits. To the extent the Subpoena seeks the production of communications between Plaintiff and Shadow, the motion to compel compliance is denied, without prejudi ce to renewupon a showing that Defendants have been unable to obtain such documents from Plaintiff; and as further set forth herein. To the extent anything in this Order impacts on any discovery deadlines previously set in this case, the parties are directed to confer in good faith and to submit a joint proposal seeking an appropriate modification of those deadlines. In light of the above rulings, the Clerk of Court is directed to close the following open motions shown on the Docket: Dkts. 99, 129, 130, 134, 137, 138, and 141. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman on 6/2/2017) (anc)
|
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.
