CATERPILLAR INC. v. TIGERCAT INTERNATIONAL INC.
Petitioner: TIGERCAT INTERNATIONAL INC.
Respondent: CATERPILLAR INC.
Case Number: 2:2015mc00176
Filed: July 6, 2015
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Office: Philadelphia Office
County: Philadelphia
Presiding Judge: BERLE M SCHILLER
Nature of Suit: Miscellaneous
Cause of Action: Motion to Quash
Jury Demanded By: None
RSS RSS Track this Docket
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on April 6, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
April 6, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 13 ORDER THAT THIS CASE BE DISMISSED AND CLOSED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SIGNED BY HONORABLE BERLE M. SCHILLER ON 4/6/21. 4/6/21 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(mbh, )
April 21, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 12 ORDER THAT THE DEPOSITIONS OF TIGERCAT INTERNATIONAL, INC. PURSUANT TO THIS COURT'S ORDER OF 7/13/15 BE TAKEN BY 6/27/16. THE PARTIES HAVE ATTEMPTED TO COMPLETE THE DEPOSITIONS IN GOOD FAITH BUT HAVE RESCHEDULED SOME OF THE DEPOSITIONS DUE TO SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN THE PARTIES. TIGERCAT INTERNATIONAL, INC. DOES NOT OBJECT TO COUNSEL FOR CATERPILLAR, INC. ATTENDING SUCH DEPOSITIONS IN PERSON IN BRANTFORD, ONTARIO, CANADA. SIGNED BY HONORABLE BERLE M. SCHILLER ON 4/20/16. 4/21/16 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(mbh, )
April 20, 2016 Filing 11 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed by CATERPILLAR INC..Certificate of Counsel, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(TROILO, LOUIS)
February 24, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 10 ORDER THAT THE DEPOSITIONS OF TIGERCAT INTERNATIONAL INC. PURSUANT TO THIS COURT'S ORDER OF 7/13/15 BE TAKEN WITHIN 90 DAYS OF 1/28/16, THE DATE TIGERCAT INTERNATIONAL INC. RESPONDED TO THE INTERROGATORIES SERVED BY CATERPILLAR INC. PURSUANT TO THIS COURT'S ORDER AND THAT TIGERCAT INTERNATIONAL INC. DOES NOT OBJECT TO COUNSEL FOR CATERPILLAR INC. ATTENDING SUCH DEPOSITIONS IN PERSON IN BRANTFORD, ONTARIO, CANADA. SIGNED BY HONORABLE BERLE M. SCHILLER ON 2/24/16. 2/25/16 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(mbh, )
February 24, 2016 Filing 9 Proposed Order upon Stipulation of Parties to Enlarge Time to Take Depositions Pursuant to Court Order dated July 13, 2015 by TIGERCAT INTERNATIONAL INC.. (FILED IN ERROR BY ATTORNEY; COPY FORWARDED TO JUDGE FOR APPROVAL). (LEWIS, JEFFREY) Modified on 2/25/2016 (fb).
July 17, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 8 ORDER THAT THE DATE OF THE FILING OF TIGERCAT INTERNATIONAL'S MOTION TO QUASH CATERIPLLAR'S RULE 45 SUBPOENA SHALL BE CHANGED TO REFLECT THE FILING DATE OF 7/2/15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CAPTION BE AMENDED TO SHOW THAT TIGERCAT IS THE MOVANT AND CATERPILLAR IS THE RESPONDENT. SIGNED BY HONORABLE BERLE M. SCHILLER ON 7/17/15. 7/17/15 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(mbh, ) Modified on 7/20/2015 (tjd).
July 16, 2015 Filing 7 Stipulation to Amend/Correct Caption filed by CATERPILLAR INC.. (FILED IN ERROR BY ATTORNEY; COPY FORWARDED TO JUDGE FOR APPROVAL).(LEWIS, JEFFREY) Modified on 7/17/2015 (fb).
July 13, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 6 ORDER THAT OPPOSER'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION IS GRANTED. APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE BERLE M. SCHILLER ON 7/13/15. 7/14/15 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(mbh, )
July 10, 2015 Filing 5 MOTION for Reconsideration re #2 Order on Motion to Quash, filed by Tigercat International, Inc filed by CATERPILLAR INC..Brief and Certificate of Service. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Declaration)(LEWIS, JEFFREY)
July 10, 2015 Filing 4 MOTION for Clarification of July 8, 2015 Order filed by CATERPILLAR INC..Memorandum, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2)(TROILO, LOUIS)
July 10, 2015 Filing 3 NOTICE of Appearance by LOUIS TROILO on behalf of CATERPILLAR INC. (TROILO, LOUIS)
July 8, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 2 ORDER THAT APPLICANT'S MOTION TO QUASH OPPOSER'S RULE 45 SUBPOENA IS DENIED AS MOOT. OPPOSER MAY TAKE APPLICANT'S DEPOSITION BY WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES. IF NECESSARY, OPPOSER MAY ALSO DEPOSE APPLICANT'S CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVES BY VIDEOCONFERENCE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF RECEIPT OF APPLICANT'S WRITTEN RESPONSES. THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO CLOSE THIS CASE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE BERLE M. SCHILLER ON 7/8/15.7/8/15 ENTERED & E-MAILED.(fdc)
July 2, 2015 Filing 1 APPLICANT'S MOTION TO QUASH OPPOSER'S RULE 45 SUBPOENA OF TIGERCAT INTERNATIONAL INC., filed by CATERPILLAR INC.. BRIEF, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, EXHIBITS. $46 FEE PAID, RECEIPT NO.: 123643.(Attachments: #1 ATTACHMENT A, #2 ATTACHMENT B, #3 ATTACHMENT C, #4 EXHIBIT 1, #5 EXHIBIT 2, #6 EXHIBIT 3, #7 EXHIBIT 4, #8 EXHIBIT A, #9 EXHIBIT B, #10 EXHIBIT C, #11 EXHIBIT D, #12 EXHIBIT E, #13 EXHIBIT F, #14 EXHIBIT G)(sg, ) Modified on 7/17/2015 (mbh, ).

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 Pennsylvania Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: CATERPILLAR INC. v. TIGERCAT INTERNATIONAL INC.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: CATERPILLAR INC.
Represented By: LOUIS TROILO
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 ]
Petitioner: TIGERCAT INTERNATIONAL INC.
Represented By: JEFFREY P. LEWIS
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?