MAGNA MIRRORS OF AMERICA, INC. v. 3M COMPANY
| MAGNA MIRRORS OF AMERICA, INC. |
| PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC and 3M COMPANY |
| 2:2012mc00359 |
| September 26, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania |
| Pittsburgh Office |
| Arthur J. Schwab |
| Other |
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
5
ORDER OF COURT GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 1 Petitioner's Motion to Compel. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The subpoena is modified as follows: Only documents that have been created since 1998 need to be produced. Requests 5 and 6 are limited in scope to the patent-in-suit; 2. To the extent PGW argues that documents are protected by privilege, it shall produce a privilege log to Magna. PGW shall otherwise comply with the subpoena; 3. All costs of complying with the subpoena sha ll be borne by Magna. These costs shall include, but are not limited to: costs for individuals searching for responsive documents, fees for attorneys reviewing the documents, and copying costs; and 4. If Magna and PGW have a dispute with regards to Magna's payments for the costs of compliance, either party may, after meeting and conferring in a good faith effort to resolve the dispute, file a Motion for relief with this Court. See Memorandum Order for further details. Signed by Judge Arthur J. Schwab on 10/15/2012. (lcb)
|
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 Western 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.
