Advanced Water Technologies Inc. v. Amiad U.S.A., Inc.
Plaintiff: Advanced Water Technologies Inc.
Defendant: Amiad U.S.A., Inc.
Case Number: 1:2018cv05473
Filed: June 18, 2018
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: Foley Square Office
County: New York
Presiding Judge: Vernon S. Broderick
Nature of Suit: Other Contract
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332
Jury Demanded By: None
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
June 29, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 85 ORDER granting 83 Letter Motion for Discovery. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 6/29/2020) (va)
June 27, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 82 ORDER terminating 78 Letter Motion for Discovery. The following is HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Amiad shall unredact the documents improperly redacted on the basis of confidentiality. To the extent that Amiad complains that the production of the unre dacted documents would give rise to competitive harm, Amiad may designate such documents as Confidential or, if appropriate, as Highly Confidential, pursuant to the terms of the recently-negotiated Protective Order. See Dkt. No. 80 (Protective Or der). 2. AWT may serve an interrogatory on Amiad seeking search terms. The interrogatory shall take the same form as the one that Amiad served on AWT. See Dkt. No. 74. As did Amiad, AWT shall obtain the Court's approval of the proposed i nterrogatory by filing it on ECF prior to serving it on Amiad. Amiad shall answer the interrogatory within 5 business days of it being served. 3. AWT's submission does not provide sufficient information for the Court to determine whether the time periods for review should be expanded for certain requests. The Court notes that some requests are clearly limited in time. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 78-1 (Requests Nos. 7, 8, 9, 16, 30). If, following Amiad's service of a response to the interrogatory and the parties' attempt to meet and confer, there remains a dispute regarding the scope of Amiad's search for responsive documents, AWT may file a letter with the Court on ECF, no more than 3 pages, identifying with specif icity the particular Request(s) as to which it claims Amiad's search was insufficient and the basis for its claim that the search was insufficient. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close Dkt. No. 78. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 6/27/2020) (va)
June 25, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 80 PROTECTIVE ORDER...regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of confidential material... (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 6/25/2020) (va)
June 23, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 77 ORDER: The Court is in receipt of proposed protective orders from both parties (Dkt. Nos. 75, 76). No later than 5:00 p.m. on June 25, 2020, the parties shall jointly file a revised proposed protective order that incorporates the following changes as against Amiad's proposed protective order (Dkt. No. 75): At Paragraph 8(c), strike "or is an officer... " to the end. At Paragraph 8, the presently-lettered (h) should be lettered (f) Substitute the Paragraph 10 that is proposed by AW T. Substitute the Paragraph 20 that is proposed by AWT. In the non-disclosure agreement, after "other than for purposes of this litigation," add "that I will not disclose such information to persons not authorized to receive it pursuant to this protective order ". Substitute AWT's final sentence in the non-disclosure agreement. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 6/23/2020) (ama)
June 19, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 74 ORDER granting 73 Letter Motion for Discovery. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 6/19/2020) (va)
June 18, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 70 ORDER granting in part 63 LETTER MOTION for Discovery / Request Assistance In Resolving Discovery Disputes. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's motion to compel (Dkt. No. 63) is GRANTED to the following extent: Plaintiff shal l respond to Request Nos. 15-16 and 19, 21, 23, and 25 to the extent that those documents were generated prior to the termination of the contract at issue in this case or refer or relate to conduct that occurred prior to that termination date. Plaint iff is not required to produce documents responsive to Request Nos. 20, 22, and 24, to the extent that those requests relate to purely internal plans either to develop a competitive product or to conduct business with a competitor of Defendant. Howev er, Plaintiff must produce documents responsive to those requests if they refer or relate to contact (or plans for contact) with customers or potential customers prior to the contracts termination. Finally, Plaintiff is not required to produce documents that relate purely to conduct or communications that post-date April 13, 2020. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate Dkt. No. 63. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 6/18/2020) (jca)
April 29, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 55 OPINION AND ORDER re: 36 MOTION to Amend/Correct / Motion For Leave To File Amended Answer And Counterclaims, filed by Amiad U.S.A., Inc.; 40 MOTION to Amend/Correct 36 MOTION to Amend/Correct / Motion For Leave To File Amended Answer And Counterclaims. / Corrected Filing To Include Exhibit - Motion To Amend Answer, filed by Amiad U.S.A., Inc. For the foregoing reasons, the motion to amend is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close Dkt. Nos. 36 and 40. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 4/29/2020) (va)
April 15, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 54 ORDER: The parties are HEREBY ORDERED to appear for telephonic oral argument on Defendant's motion to amend (Dkt. No. 36) on April 23, 2020 at 3:00 p.m. Parties are directed to call (888) 251-2909 and use access code 2123101. SO ORDERED. ( Oral Argument set for 4/23/2020 at 03:00 PM before Judge Lewis J. Liman.) (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 4/15/2020) (va)
April 8, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 49 PROTECTIVE ORDER...regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of confidential material... (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 4/8/2020) (va)
April 6, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 47 ORDER denying 43 Letter Motion to Compel: Plaintiff's motion to compel (Dkt. No. 43) is DENIED. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall submit a proposed protective order no later than 5:00 p.m. on April 10, 2020. In accordance with Parag raph 2(F) of the Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases (available at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-lewis-j-liman), the proposed protective order must conform as closely as possible with the Court's Model Protective Order, which is available on the same webpage. Any changes must be reflected in a redline that should be filed as an exhibit to the proposed protective order. (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 4/6/2020) (jwh)
February 12, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 35 ORDER: This case has been randomly reassigned to me for all purposes. It is hereby: ORDERED that the status conference previously scheduled for August 27, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. shall proceed on that date and at that time in Courtroom 15C of the U.S. Dis trict Court for the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York. In advance of the conference and no later than August 13, 2020, any party intending to move for summary judgment shall file on ECF a letter, not to exceed three pages in length, setting forth the basis for the anticipated summary judgment motion, including the legal standards and elements governing the claims at issue. Any party intending to oppose that motion shall file on ECF a letter, not to exceed three pages in length, setting forth anticipated arguments in opposition by August 20, 2020. The content and timing for any anticipated motions for summary judgment will be discussed at the August 27, 2020 status conference. The deadline for submission of a Joint Pretrial Order will also be discussed at the August 27, 2020 conference. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 2/12/2020) (ama)
September 30, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 25 OPINION & ORDER re: 12 MOTION to Dismiss The Complaint. filed by Amiad U.S.A., Inc. For the foregoing reasons, Amiad's motion to dismiss is DENIED. Amiad shall file an answer to the Complaint no later than twenty-one (21) days after the entry of this Opinion & Order. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion pending at Docket Entry 12. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 9/30/2019) (mml)
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 New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Advanced Water Technologies Inc. v. Amiad U.S.A., Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Advanced Water Technologies Inc.
Represented By: Ronald Francis
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: Amiad U.S.A., Inc.
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?