Revive Rx LLC v. Hoelscher
| Revive Rx LLC |
| Reed Hoelscher |
| Morph Health and Wellness PC, RX Reinvented LLC and James David Lawrence, III |
| 3:2025cv00798 |
| April 2, 2025 |
| U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas |
| Ed Kinkeade |
| Defend Trade Secrets Act (of 2016) |
| 18 U.S.C. § 1836 (b) Civil Action to Protect Trade Secrets |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 10, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 80
ELECTRONIC ORDER:Before the Court is Plaintiff Revive RX, LLC's Unopposed Motion to Extend the Deadline to File its Briefing in Support of Sealing in Connection with Defendant Reed Hoelscher's Response to Revive's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Supporting Briefing, and Attachments (the "Motion") (Doc. No. 79). Having carefully considered the Motion, the Court finds good cause for the requested extension of time for Plaintiff to file its briefing in support of sealing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion. Plaintiff shall file its briefing in support of sealing by October 3, 2025.(Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 9/23/2025) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 79
Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Briefing in Support of Sealing in Connection with Defendant Reed Hoelschers Response to Revives Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Supporting Briefing, and Attachments(Dkt., 67, 68) filed by Revive Rx LLC (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order) (Miller, David)
|
|
Filing 78
RESPONSE filed by Revive Rx LLC re: #69 Response/Objection, (Miller, David)
|
|
Filing 77
REPLY filed by Revive Rx LLC re: #38 (Document Restricted) Sealed Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Brief in Support (Sealed pursuant to SO 19-1, statute, or rule) (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) 1) (Miller, David)
|
|
Filing 76
ELECTRONIC ORDER: The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's Notice of Filing Redacted Documents Pursuant to the Court's September 5, 2025 order (the "Notice") (Doc. No. 65). In the Notice, Plaintiff brings to the Court's attention an additional redaction not addressed by the Court's September 5, 2025 order (Doc. No. 61) granting Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal in Connection with its Motion for Preliminary Injunction (the "Motion for Leave") (Doc. No. 35). See Doc. No. 65 at 1-2. Specifically, Plaintiff redacted sensitive cost and pricing information contained in Exhibit 3, page 105 of the Sealed Appendix Supporting its Motion for Preliminary Injunction (the "Appendix") (Doc. No. 38-1), at paragraph 4. Id. Plaintiff's counsel previously identified this information when it conferred with Defendant's counsel regarding the Motion for Leave, and Defendant's counsel stated that Defendant was unopposed to sealing this information. Id. at 2, n. 1; 4. In the Court's September 5, 2025 order, it granted Plaintiff's request to seal certain exhibits in the Appendix and portions of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. See Doc. No. 61. This included page 10 of the Motion for Preliminary Injunction at paragraphs 1, 2, and both charts contained therein, located in Doc. No. 38 at 16 (sealed version) and Doc. No. 39 at 16 (public version). Id. Plaintiff points out that the information it now requests to seal is identical to the information contained on page 10 of the Motion for Preliminary Injunction at paragraph 2 and chart 2, both of which the Court ordered sealed. Doc. No. 65 at 2. Plaintiff has already rebutted the "presumption of openness" with its previous showing of its "compelling countervailing interests favoring nondisclosure" of the information set forth in its Notice. Binh Hoa Le v. Exeter Fin. Corp., 990 F.3d 410, 419 (5th Cir. 2021). Further, the Court's September 5, 2025 order permitted sealing of the same information in the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. See Doc. No. 61.Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's request to redact certain information in Exhibit 3, page 105 of the Appendix, at paragraph 4. As Plaintiff has already redacted this information (see Doc. No. 65-2 at 108), the sealed information appears on the record. Therefore, no further action must be taken. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 9/19/2025) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 75
ELECTRONIC ORDER: Before the Court is Plaintiff Revive RX, LLC's Unopposed Motion to Extend Page Limit for Plaintiff's Reply in Support of its Preliminary-Injunction Motion (the "Motion") (Doc. No. 74). Plaintiff seeks leave to exceed the Court's page limit for reply briefs in its reply in support of its Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. Nos. 38 & 39) by 5 pages. Doc. No. 74 at 1. Plaintiff states that "[b]ecause of the length of the [Preliminary Injunction] Motion and [Preliminary Injunction] Response, and the evidentiary nature of a preliminary-injunction proceeding," the five-page extension is warranted. Id. Having carefully considered the Motion, the Court finds "compelling reasons" to give leave to exceed the 10-page limit for reply briefs set forth in this Court's Local Civil Rules. L. Civ. R. 7.2(c). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion. Plaintiff may exceed the 10-page limit by no more than 5 pages.(Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 9/19/2025) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 74
Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Exceed the Page Limit for Plaintiff Revive RX's Reply in Support of Its Preliminary-Injunction Motion filed by Revive Rx LLC (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order) (Miller, David)
|
|
Filing 73
REPLY filed by Revive Rx LLC re: #41 MOTION to Compel fORENSIC INSPECTION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM DEFENDANT (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) I-1, #2 Exhibit(s) N-1) (Fox, Stephen)
|
|
Filing 72
NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Rebecca Kate James on behalf of Revive Rx LLC. (Filer confirms contact info in ECF is current.) (James, Rebecca)
|
|
Filing 71
NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Kate Rumsey on behalf of Revive Rx LLC (Rumsey, Kate) Modified event text on 9/17/2025 (knb).
|
|
Filing 70
AMENDED PROTECTIVE ORDER. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 9/15/2025) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 69
OBJECTION filed by Reed Hoelscher re: #39 MOTION for Injunction Public Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Brief in Support, #38 (Document Restricted) Sealed Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Brief in Support (Sealed pursuant to SO 19-1, statute, or rule) (Mitzner, Matthew)
|
|
Filing 68
(Document Restricted) Sealed Response re: #38 Sealed and/or Ex Parte Motion (Sealed pursuant to SO 19-1, statute, or rule) filed by Reed Hoelscher (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) Sealed) (Mitzner, Matthew)
|
|
Filing 67
RESPONSE filed by Reed Hoelscher re: #39 MOTION for Injunction Public Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Brief in Support (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) Public) (Mitzner, Matthew)
|
|
Filing 66
Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Documents Under Seal filed by Reed Hoelscher (Mitzner, Matthew)
|
|
Filing 65
NOTICE of Filing Redacted Versions of its Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 39) and Appendix (Dkt. 39-1) re: #39 MOTION for Injunction Public Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Brief in Support filed by Revive Rx LLC (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) Plaintiffs Public Motion for Preliminary Injunction, #2 Exhibit(s) Plaintiff's Public Appendix In Support of its Motion for Preliminary Injunction) (Miller, David)
|
|
Filing 64
ELECTRONIC ORDER: Before the Court is Defendant Reed Hoelscher's Unopposed Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limit (the "Motion") (Doc. No. 63). Defendant seeks leave to exceed the Court's page limit for briefs in his response to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. Nos. 38 & 39) by 10 pages. Doc. No. 63 at 1-2. Defendant states that his response brief is "extremely detailed and complex" and a large amount of expedited discovery has been produced. Id. Having carefully considered the Motion, the Court finds "compelling reasons" to give leave to exceed the 25-page limit set forth in this Court's Local Civil Rules. L. Civ. R. 7.2(c). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion. Defendant may exceed the 25-page limit by no more than 10 pages. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 9/12/2025) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 63
MOTION to Exceed Page Limit, MOTION for Leave to File Exceed Page Limit () filed by Reed Hoelscher (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order) (Mitzner, Matthew)
|
|
Filing 62
Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct #17 Order on Motion for Protective Order filed by Revive Rx LLC (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order) (Fox, Stephen)
|
|
Filing 61
ELECTRONIC ORDER:Before the Court is Plaintiff Revive Rx, LLC's Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal in Connection with its Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 35). In addition to the Motion to Seal and as required by this Court's sealing order, Plaintiff filed a sealed Brief in Support (Doc. No. 36) and a public Brief in Support (Doc. No. 37) (together with the Motion to Seal, the "Motion"). Plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal portions of certain exhibits (Exhibits 1-B, 1-E, 1-I, 3, and 3-A) in the Appendix Supporting its Motion for Preliminary Injunction (the "Appendix") (Doc. No. 38-1 (sealed) & Doc. No. 39-1 (public)) and portions of its Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 38 (sealed) & Doc. No. 39 (public)) (page 10 at paragraphs 1 and 2, and charts contained therein) "that contain [Plaintiff's] confidential and trade-secret business information and were designated by Revive as Confidential-Attorneys'-Eyes Only pursuant to the Protective Order." Doc. No. 35 at 1-2. The relevant portions of these exhibits consist of Plaintiff's cost and pricing information. See Doc. No. 35 at 2. Further, Plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal certain portions of its Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Specifically, Plaintiff wishes to file under seal page 10, paragraphs 1-2 and the charts contained therein, which contain Plaintiff's confidential business information. Id. Defendant is unopposed to the Motion. Id. at 5. Further, Plaintiff states that Defendant designated Exhibit 1-C and the following portions of the Motion for Preliminary Injunction as "Confidential Attorneys'-Eyes-Only Information" pursuant to the Parties' Protective Order (Doc. No. 17): page 1 at paragraph 4 (line 1), page 6 at footnotes 3-4, page 8 at paragraph 1 (line 2), page 12 at paragraph 2 (lines 5-6), page 12 at paragraph 2 (line 6), page 12 at paragraph 3 (line 5), pages 22-23 at paragraph 2 (lines 3-7), page 28 at paragraph 1 (line 4), and page 29 at paragraph 1 (lines 9-10). Id. at 3. Plaintiff does not claim any interest in sealing this information, but states that "Defendant has designated" this information as confidential. Id. Further, Plaintiff certified that Defendant would "file the supporting briefing and exhibits within #14 days" of the Motion. Id. After the deadline to file these materials had passed, the Court gave Defendant one last chance to either file the required supporting briefing or disclaim any interest in sealing. See Doc. No. 43. In Defendant's response to that order and the Motion (Doc. No. 53), he expressly declined to file the supporting materials required for sealing and provided Plaintiff with an unredacted version of his expedited interrogatory responses. Doc. No. 53 at 1. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the Motion.In determining the Motion, the Court is mindful of "the working presumption [] that judicial records should not be sealed." Binh Hoa Le v. Exeter Fin. Corp., 990 F.3d 410, 419 (5th Cir. 2021). "However, the public's common law right [of access to judicial records] is not absolute." SEC v. Van Waeyenberghe, 990 F.2d 845, 848 (5th Cir. 1993). The Court has reviewed the documents, page-by-page and line-by-line, and weighed "the public's common law right of access against the interests favoring nondisclosure." Le, 990 F.3d at 419-420.Regarding the information in which Plaintiff claims an interest in sealing, the Court GRANTS the Motion. This information contains cost and pricing information that includes exact prices for various products. See generally Doc. No. 36-1. Further, information such as profit margins is contained in the documents. See id. at 13. "The listed portions of each of these documents cited in [the] Motion for Preliminary Injunction contain [Plaintiff's] confidential business information and pose a specific threat of competitive harm to [Plaintiff's] business if such information were to be filed publicly." Doc. No. 36 at 5. Having carefully considered the Motion to Seal and supporting briefs, the Court finds that Plaintiff explained with sufficient particularity the need to maintain these documents under seal. See Trans Tool, LLC v. All State Gear Inc., No. 19-CV-1304, 2022 WL 608945, at *6 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 1, 2022) (the party seeking secrecy "must explain in particularity the necessity for sealing" which "may require them to address the submitted sealed documents on the same line-by-line basis that the court must ultimately apply.") (quoting BP Expl. & Prod., Inc. v. Claimant ID 100246928, 920 F.3d 209, 211 (5th Cir. 2019) (internal quotations omitted)). Having weighed the public's right of access to judicial proceedings against Plaintiff's interest in sealing, the Court finds that Plaintiff rebutted "the presumption of openness" with its showing of "compelling countervailing interests favoring nondisclosure" of this information. Le, 990 F.3d at 421. Further, the minimal redactions of this information are "congruent to the need." Id. at 420. Accordingly, the following portions of the Appendix and the Motion for Preliminary Injunction shall remain UNDER SEAL:Exhibit 1-B, page 20 of the Appendix at lines 10 and 11. Doc. No. 38-1 at 23 (sealed appendix) & Doc. No. 39-1 at 23 (public appendix).Exhibit 1-E, page 50 of the Appendix at paragraphs 3-6. Doc. No. 38-1 at 53 & Doc. No. 39-1 at 53.Exhibit 1-I, page 56 of the Appendix at paragraphs 2-7. Doc. No. 38-1 at 59 & Doc. No. 39-1 at 59.Exhibit 3, page 105 of the Appendix at paragraph 3 of the Declaration of Sanjay Jajoo. Doc. No. 38-1 at 108 & Doc. No. 39-1 at 108.Exhibit 3-A, page 110 of the Appendix at paragraphs 2 and 3. Doc. No. 38-1 at 113 & Doc. No. 39-1 at 113.Page 10 of the Motion for Preliminary Injunction at paragraphs 1, 2, and both charts contained therein. Doc. No. 38 at 16 (sealed motion) & Doc. No. 39 at 16 (public motion).Plaintiff shall file redacted versions of these documents by September 12, 2025. If possible, Plaintiff shall link these redacted filings to the Appendix filed at Doc. No. 39-1 (public version) and the Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed at Doc. No. 39 (public version).Regarding the information Plaintiff certified that Defendant would file briefing in support of, the Court DENIES the Motion. Plaintiff expressly disclaimed any interest in sealing Exhibit 1-C (Doc. No. 38-1 at 35-48 (sealed) & Doc. No. 39-1 at 35-48 (public)) and portions of the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Doc. No. 35 at 3. Further, Defendant is unopposed to unsealing this information, as he declined to file the required documents in support of sealing and sent unredacted interrogatory responses to Plaintiff. Doc. No. 53 at 1. Since the public's presumptive right of access to judicial proceedings has not been rebutted, the Court finds that Exhibit 1-C of the Appendix and the following portions of the Motion for Preliminary Injunction shall be UNSEALED:Page 1 at paragraph 4 (line 1); page 6 at footnotes 3 and 4; page 8 at paragraph 1 (line 2); page 12 at paragraph 2 (lines 5-6); page 12 at paragraph 2 (line 6); page 12 at paragraph 3 (line 5); pages 22-23 at paragraph 2 (lines 3-7); page 28 at paragraph 1 (line 4); and page 29 at paragraph 1 (lines 9-10).Plaintiff shall file unredacted versions of Exhibit 1-C and the portions of the Motion for Preliminary Injunction listed in the preceding paragraph by September 12, 2025. If possible, Plaintiff shall link these unredacted versions to the Appendix filed at Doc. No. 39-1 and the Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed at Doc. No. 39. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 9/5/2025) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 60
ELECTRONIC ORDER withdrawing and terminating Plaintiff Revive RX, LLC's #30 Motion To Compel Production of Documents from Nonparties Morph Health and Wellness, P.C., RX Reinvented, LLC, and Dr. James David Lawrence III and Non-Parties Morph Health and Wellness, P.C., RX Reinvented, LLC, and Dr. James David Lawrence III's #47 Motion to Quash or, Alternatively, Modify Revive's Subpoenas, and Motion for Costs under Rule 45 based on the #59 Joint Notice to Withdraw Motions. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge David L. Horan on 9/4/2025.)
|
|
Filing 59
NOTICE of Withdrawal Motions re: #30 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents from Non-Parties, #47 RESPONSE, MOTION to Quash, or Alternatively, Modify and MOTION for Costs filed by Revive Rx LLC (Fox, Stephen)
|
|
Filing 58
RESPONSE filed by Reed Hoelscher re: #41 MOTION to Compel fORENSIC INSPECTION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM DEFENDANT (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s), #2 Exhibit(s), #3 Exhibit(s), #4 Exhibit(s), #5 Declaration(s), #6 Exhibit(s)) (Mitzner, Matthew)
|
|
Filing 57
ELECTRONIC ORDER:Before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Extend (the "Motion") (Doc. No. 44). Defendant seeks to extend his deadline to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 38) until October 10, 2025. Doc. No. 44 at 14. "[Defendant] needs the additional time he has requested to be able to obtain evidence necessary for him" to defeat a preliminary injunction. Id. at 10. Plaintiff partially opposes the Motion and filed its response (Doc. No. 50), to which Defendant replied (Doc. No. 54). Plaintiff is unopposed to a 7 day extension, but opposes an October 10, 2025 deadline. Doc No. 50 at 2. However, Plaintiff proposes "that the current briefing on the [Motion for Preliminary Injunction] proceed as normal, but that the parties jointly seek leave to file 'supplemental briefing' after the conclusion of the expedited depositions." Id. at 4. Specifically, Plaintiff proposes that the supplemental briefing deadline be set on the earlier of 14 days after all expedited depositions are complete or 14 days before a hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. See Doc. No. 50-1 at 4. Conversely, Defendant proposes that the Parties may complete the expedited depositions pursuant to the Court's expedited discovery schedule (Doc. No. 15) and Plaintiff may amend its Motion for Preliminary Injunction thereafter, in order to use the deposition testimony as evidence. See Doc. No. 54 at 2. Having carefully considered the Motion and the respective positions of the Parties, the Court finds good cause for an extension of the deadline to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion as to extending the deadline. However, the Court does not find, on this briefing, that the requested deadline to respond, October 10, 2025, is justified. Accordingly, the deadlines are extended as follows:Defendant shall respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction by September 12, 2025. Plaintiff shall file its reply in support of the motion by September 26, 2025.Northern District of Texas Local Rule 56.7 states that "a party may not, without the permission of the presiding judge, file supplemental pleadings, briefs, authorities, or evidence." L. Civ. R. 56.7. If the Parties wish to file supplemental briefing after the completion of the expedited depositions, they may file a joint motion for leave at that time. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 9/2/2025) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 56
ELECTRONIC ORDER granting Plaintiff Revive RX, LLC's #55 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File a Reply in support of its #30 Motion to Compel and, for good cause, extending the deadline for Revive to file its reply in support of its #30 Motion to Compel to September 4, 2025. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge David L. Horan on 8/28/2025.)
|
|
Filing 55
MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to #30 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents from Non-Parties filed by Revive Rx LLC (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order Order Granting Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File a Reply) (Fox, Stephen)
|
|
Filing 54
REPLY filed by Reed Hoelscher re: #44 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to #39 MOTION for Injunction Public Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Brief in Support, #38 (Document Restricted) Sealed Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Brief in Support (Seal (Mitzner, Matthew)
|
|
Filing 53
REPLY filed by Reed Hoelscher re: #35 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Documents Under Seal in Connection with its Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Mitzner, Matthew)
|
|
Filing 52
ELECTRONIC ORDER: By 9:00 a.m., August 22, 2025, Defendant shall file his reply to Plaintiff's Response (Doc. No. 50) Partially Opposing Defendant's Motion to Extend (Doc. No. 44). (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 8/19/2025) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 51
ELECTRONIC Order Referring Motion. The Motion to Quash or, Alternatively, Modify Revives Subpoenas, and Motion for Costs under Rule 45 (Doc. No. 47) filed by Non-Parties Dr. James David Lawrence, III, Morph Health and Wellness P.C., and RX Reinvented, LLC is hereby REFERRED to Magistrate Judge David L. Horan for hearing, if necessary, and for determination.(Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 8/19/2025) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 50
RESPONSE filed by Revive Rx LLC re: #44 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to #39 MOTION for Injunction Public Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Brief in Support, #38 (Document Restricted) Sealed Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Brief in Support (Seal (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s), #2 Exhibit(s)) (Miller, David)
|
|
Filing 49
RESPONSE filed by Reed Hoelscher re: 45 Order,, (Mitzner, Matthew)
|
|
Filing 48
Designation of Mediator by Revive Rx LLC. (Miller, David)
|
|
Filing 47
RESPONSE, MOTION to Quash, or Alternatively, Modify and MOTION for Costs filed by James David Lawrence, III, Morph Health and Wellness PC, RX Reinvented LLC re: #30 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents from Non-Parties (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) A - Declaration of Dr. Lawrence) (Campiti, Tony) Modified event text on 8/15/2025 (knb).
|
|
Filing 46
***DISREGARD***ELECTRONIC Order Referring Motion. The Court hereby REFERS Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Forensic Inspection and Production of Documents From Defendant Reed Hoelscher (Doc. No. 41) to Magistrate Judge David L. Horan for hearing, if necessary, and determination. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 8/14/2025) (chmb) Modified on 8/14/2025 (chmb).
|
|
Filing 45
ELECTRONIC ORDER: The Court is in receipt of Defendant's Motion to Extend (Doc. No. 44) the deadline to file his response to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 38). Having reviewed the Certificate of Conference, the Court ORDERS Defendant to confer with counsel for Plaintiff and file a supplemental Certificate of Conference indicating whether the Motion to Extend is opposed or unopposed by August 18, 2025.(Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 8/14/2025) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 44
MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to #39 MOTION for Injunction Public Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Brief in Support, #38 (Document Restricted) Sealed Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Brief in Support (Sealed pursuant to SO 19-1, statute, or rule) filed by Reed Hoelscher with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: #1 Declaration(s) with Exhibits) (Mitzner, Matthew)
|
|
Filing 43
ELECTRONIC ORDER:Before the Court is Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal in Connection with its Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 35) along with a sealed brief in support (Doc. No. 36) and public brief in support (Doc. No. 37) (together, the "Motion to Seal"). Plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal portions of its Motion for Preliminary Injunction and certain exhibits in support. See, e.g., Doc. No. 35 at 2-3. Plaintiff states certain of this information was designated as "Confidential Attorneys'-Eyes-Only Information" by Defendant and, because Plaintiff has no interest in maintaining it under seal, Plaintiff certified that Defendant "will file the supporting briefing and exhibits within fourteen (14) days" as required by this Court's sealing order. Id. at 3; see Doc. No. 31 at 3-4 (sealing order). Plaintiff identified this specific information as the following (the "Unsupported Information") (Doc. No. 35 at 3): Exhibit 1-C, filed with Plaintiff's Appendix in Support; andThe following portions of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction: Page 1 at paragraph 4 (line 1); page 6 at footnotes 3 and 4; page 8 at paragraph 1 (line 2); page 12 at paragraph 2 (lines 5-6); page 12 at paragraph 2 (line 6); page 12 ap paragraph 3 (line 5); pages 2223 at paragraph 2 (lines 3-7); page 28 at paragraph 1 (line 4); and page 29 at paragraph 1 (lines 9-10). To-date, Defendant has not filed a supporting brief and the time to do so has passed. In the sealing order, the Court warned, "A nonmovant that fails to file briefing and exhibits complying with this order within fourteen days of the filing of the motion likewise consents to the unsealing of all documents covered by the motion." Id. at 4; see Binh Hoa Le v. Exeter Fin. Corp., 990 F.3d 410, 421 (5th Cir. 2021) ("The secrecy of judicial records, including stipulated secrecy, must be justified and weighed against the presumption of openness that can be rebutted only by compelling countervailing interests favoring nondisclosure."). On this briefing, the public's presumptive right of access to the Unsupported Information has not been rebutted by Defendant. However, before the Court denies Plaintiff's request to seal the Unsupported Information, the Court will permit Defendant a final opportunity to submit a brief in support of sealing said information by August 20, 2025. A sealing brief shall comply with the briefing procedure set forth in the Court's sealing order (Doc. No. 31). Alternatively, Defendant may file a notice disclaiming any interest in sealing the Unsupported Information by this same deadline. If Defendant does not respond, the Court will construe his silence as consent to making the Unsupported Information publicly available and deny the request to file it under seal. Accordingly, the Court DEFERS ruling on the Motion to Seal. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 8/13/2025) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 42
ELECTRONIC Order Referring #41 MOTION to Compel FORENSIC INSPECTION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM DEFENDANT, to Magistrate Judge David L. Horan for hearing if necessary and determination. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 8/13/2025) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 41
MOTION to Compel fORENSIC INSPECTION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM DEFENDANT filed by Revive Rx LLC (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) A, #2 Exhibit(s) B, #3 Exhibit(s) C, #4 Exhibit(s) D, #5 Exhibit(s) E, #6 Exhibit(s) F, #7 Exhibit(s) G, #8 Exhibit(s) H, #9 Exhibit(s) I, #10 Exhibit(s) J, #11 Exhibit(s) K, #12 Exhibit(s) L, #13 Exhibit(s) M, #14 Exhibit(s) N, #15 Exhibit(s) O - PROPOSED ORDER) (Fox, Stephen)
|
|
Filing 40
(Document Restricted) Attorney Contact Information (Sealed pursuant to order dated 7/16/2025) filed by Reed Hoelscher (Mitzner, Matthew)
|
|
Filing 39
MOTION for Injunction Public Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Brief in Support filed by Revive Rx LLC with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) Public Appendix, #2 Proposed Order) (Miller, David)
|
|
Filing 38
(Document Restricted) Sealed Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Brief in Support (Sealed pursuant to SO 19-1, statute, or rule) filed by Revive Rx LLC (Attachments: #1 Additional Page(s) Sealed Appendix, #2 Proposed Order) (Miller, David)
|
|
Filing 37
Brief/Memorandum in Support filed by Revive Rx LLC re #35 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Documents Under Seal (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) Public) (Miller, David) Modified linkage and event text on 7/29/2025 (kcr).
|
|
Filing 36
(Document Restricted) Sealed Brief/Memorandum in Support re: #35 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Documents Under Seal (Sealed pursuant to SO 19-1, statute, or rule) filed by Revive Rx LLC (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) Sealed) (Miller, David) Modified linkage and event text on 7/29/2025 (kcr).
|
|
Filing 35
Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Documents Under Seal in Connection with its Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Revive Rx LLC (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order) (Miller, David)
|
|
Filing 34
ELECTRONIC Order Referring Motion. The Court REFERS Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents from Non-Parties Morph Health and Wellness, P.C., RX Reinvented, LLC, and Dr. James David Lawrence III (Doc. No. 30) to Magistrate Judge David L. Horan for hearing, if necessary, and determination. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 7/28/2025) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 33
ELECTRONIC ORDER:Before the Court is Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limit (the "Motion") (Doc. No. 32). Having carefully considered the same, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff's request to exceed the page limit of its Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Brief in Support by five (5) pages. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 7/28/2025) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 32
Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Exceed Page LimitRevive's Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Revive Rx LLC (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order) (Fox, Stephen)
|
|
Filing 31
ORDER the following requirements govern motions to seal in this matter:If a party seeks leave to file documents under seal, the party shall file a motion for leave to file the documents under seal accompanied by either (1) supporting briefing and exhibits as described below, or (2) a certification that another party will file the supporting briefing and exhibits within fourteen days of the filing of the motion. The briefing and exhibits or the certification, as applicable, must be filed separately from the motion. A movant that fails to file briefing and exhibits complying with this order concurrently with its motion consents to the unsealing of all documents covered by the motion. A nonmovant that fails to file briefing and exhibits complying with this order within fourteen days of the filing of the motion likewise consents to the unsealing of all documents covered by the motion. A party filing briefs and supporting exhibits urging the Court to file documents under seal shall file (1) a public, unsealed brief, (2) a public, unsealed attachment to the public brief, (3) a sealed brief, and (4) sealed attachments to the sealed brief. Within twenty-one days of the filing of the briefing described above, any party opposing sealing shall file (1) a public, unsealed brief, (2) a public, unsealed attachment to the unsealed brief, and (3) a sealed brief. Within fourteen days of the filing of the response in opposition, if any, the party filing the briefs in support of sealing may file (1) a public, unsealed reply brief and (2) a sealed reply brief. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 7/28/2025) (cea)
|
|
Filing 30
***WITHDRAWN PER 60 ORDER***MOTION to Compel Production of Documents from Non-Parties filed by Revive Rx LLC (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) A-G) (Fox, Stephen) Modified on 9/5/2025 (ykp).
|
|
Filing 29
SCHEDULING ORDER: Bench Trial set for 4/5/2027 09:00 AM before Judge Ed Kinkeade. Deadline for mediation is on or before 11/28/2025. Joint Report on mediation due by 12/5/2025. Joinder of Parties due by 12/1/2025. Amended Pleadings due by 12/1/2025. Discovery due by 10/16/2026. Motions due by 11/20/2026. Pretrial Order due by 3/15/2027. Pretrial Materials due by 3/15/2027. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 7/16/2025) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 28
REPLY filed by Reed Hoelscher re: #18 MOTION to Dismiss (Mitzner, Matthew)
|
|
Filing 27
STATUS REPORT Joint Rule 26(f) Conference Report filed by Revive Rx LLC. (Miller, David)
|
|
Filing 26
AFFIDAVIT of Service for Subpoena served on Optimal Balance Pharmacy LLC on 6/30/2025. (knb)
|
|
Filing 25
ELECTRONIC STANDING ORDER: This Court requires all counsel of record to review and comply with the undersigned's Judge Specific Requirements as well as the Local Civil Rules for the Northern District of Texas upon making an appearance in a matter before this Court. These can be found at # Judge Specific Requirements and # Local Civil Rules . Further, counsel shall refer to this Court's Judge Specific Requirements and the Local Civil Rules prior to calling chambers with any questions. The Court calls specific attention to Local Civil Rule 7.2(f), which addresses the disclosure of the use of generative artificial intelligence, and Local Civil Rule 83.10, which address the requirement of local counsel. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 7/7/2025) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 24
ELECTRONIC ORDER granting #23 Unopposed Motion to Extend Time to File Reply. Replies due by 7/15/2025. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 7/3/2025) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 23
MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to #22 Response/Objection, #18 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Reed Hoelscher (Mitzner, Matthew)
|
|
Filing 22
RESPONSE AND OBJECTION filed by Revive Rx LLC re: #18 MOTION to Dismiss (Fox, Stephen)
|
|
Filing 21
Return of Service for Subpoena served on RX Reinvented LLC on 6/11/2025. (axm)
|
|
Filing 20
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Reed Hoelscher (Mitzner, Matthew) Modified text on 6/12/2025 (ykp). (Main Document 20 replaced on 6/12/2025) (ykp).
|
|
Filing 19
ORDER REQUIRING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE AND REPORT FOR CONTENTS OF SCHEDULING ORDER. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 6/4/2025) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 18
MOTION to Dismiss filed by Reed Hoelscher with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Mitzner, Matthew)
|
|
Filing 17
PROTECTIVE ORDER. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 5/29/2025) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 16
Joint MOTION for Protective Order Joint Motion for Entry of Agreed Protective Order filed by Revive Rx LLC (Attachments: #1 Proposed Agreed Protective Order) (Miller, David)
|
|
Filing 15
ELECTRONIC ORDER granting #9 Plaintiff Revive RX, LLC's Expedited Motion for Expedited Discovery.Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) provides that "a party 'may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except... [when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or] by court order.'" Fiduciary Network, LLC v. Buehler, No. 3:15-cv-808-M, 2015 WL 11120985, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 23, 2015) (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 26(d)(1)).And, while "[t]he Federal Rules do not provide a standard for ordering expedited discovery," district courts in this circuit "utilize a 'good cause' standard." Id.; see also Dish Network L.L.C. v. Motasaki, No. 4:20-CV-1702, 2020 WL 10786543, at *1 (S.D. Tex. June 26, 2020) ("Any party seeking expedited discovery must show good cause." (citation omitted))."Under the good cause standard, as applied in this circuit, courts consider five factors: (1) whether a preliminary injunction is pending; (2) the breadth of the discovery requests; (3) the purpose for requesting the expedited discovery; (4) the burden on the defendants to comply with the requests; and (5) how far in advance of the typical discovery process the request was made." EYM Pizza of Georgia LLC v. Pizza Hut LLC, No. 3:24-cv-646-X, 2024 WL 1743363, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 27, 2024) (cleaned up). In sum, "good cause typically exists where" "[t]he party seeking expedited discovery" demonstrates that "the need for expedited discovery outweighs the prejudice to the responding party," while showing that "the scope of the requests [are] narrowly tailored to the necessary information [sought]." ELargo Holdings, LLC v. Doe-68.105.146.38, 318 F.R.D. 58, 61 (M.D. La. 2016) (cleaned up).Under this standard, courts have explained that "expedited discovery has been granted where" "the discovery would better enable the court to judge the parties' interests and respective chances for success on the merits at a preliminary injunction hearing." Talon Transformation Tech., Inc. v. StoneEagle Servs., Inc., No. 3:13-cv-902-P, 2013 WL 12172925, at *2 (N.D. Tex. May 14, 2013) (cleaned up). And, while a "pending preliminary injunction application can provide a basis for good cause, it does not constitute per se good cause." Id. (cleaned up).In any event, "[t]he burden of showing good cause is on the party seeking the expedited discovery." Accruent, 2017 WL 8811606, at *1.But, as Defendant Reed Hoelscher points out in response to Revive's motion, some courts have instead used a "preliminary-injunction-style analysis" to determine whether a party is entitled to conduct expedited discovery. See generally Accruent, LLC v. Short, No. 1:17-cv-858-RP, 2017 WL 8811606, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 8, 2017) (laying out the two competing standards). Courts have explained that the "preliminary injunction-style analysis appears to have become the minority approach [and] is the more rigid standard." St. Louis Grp., Inc. v. Metals & Additives Corp., 275 F.R.D. 236, 239 (S.D. Tex. 2011) (cleaned up). "Under that standard, a court analyzes the following factors: (1) irreparable injury; (2) some probability of success on the merits; (3) some connection between the expedited discovery and the avoidance of the irreparable injury; and (4) some evidence that the injury that will result without expedited discovery is greater than the injury the party will suffer if the expedited relief is granted." St. Louis Grp., Inc. v. Metals & Additives Corp., 275 F.R.D. 236, 239 (S.D. Tex. 2011) (cleaned up).But courts have explained that the "preliminary injunction-style analysis appears to have become the minority approach [and] is the more rigid standard." Id. (cleaned up).The Court determines that it should evaluate Revive's request against the good cause standard. As other courts have explained, "where, as here, a plaintiff seeks expedited discovery in order to prepare for a preliminary injunction hearing, it does not make sense to use preliminary injunction analysis factors to determine the propriety of an expedited discovery request." Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. O'Connor, 194 F.R.D. 618, 624 (N.D. Ill. 2000) (cleaned up). That is because the "preliminary-injunction-style analysis" "is similar to the analysis necessary to justify the far more dramatic decision to grant a preliminary injunction, and employing a preliminary-injunction type analysis to determine entitlement to expedited discovery makes little sense, especially when applied to a request to expedite discovery in order to prepare for a preliminary injunction hearing." Ayyash v. Bank Al-Madina, 233 F.R.D. 325, 326-27 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).In short, the Court will not require Revive to show at this juncture that it is entitled to prevail on its pleaded request for a preliminary injunction before it is permitted and, indeed, to allow it to be authorized -- to seek discovery that it contends that it needs to prevail on that request. To conclude otherwise requires turning a blind eye to where the proverbial cart goes relative to its horse.The Court concludes that, "where a plaintiff seeks expedited discovery to prepare for a preliminary injunction hearing, it makes sense to examine the discovery request, as [this and other judges in this district] have done [under the multi-factor good cause standard], on the entirety of the record to date and the reasonableness of the request in light of all of the surrounding circumstances." Merrill Lynch, 194 F.R.D. at 624 (cleaned up); accord EYM Pizza, 2024 WL 1743363, at *1; Jani-King of Miami, Inc. v. Leicht, No. 3:23-cv-389-B, 2023 WL 2825689, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 17, 2023); PhalloFill Clinics, LLC v. Pash, No. 3:22-cv-2268-N, 2023 WL 2496591, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 8, 2023); Fidelity Brokerage Servs., LLC v. Edwards, No. 3:20-cv-852-E, 2021 WL 3771771, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 4, 2021); Digital Generation, Inc. v. Boring, No. 3:12-cv-329-L-BK, 2012 WL 12872463, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 5, 2012); Paterson Enters. Ltd. v. Whitmore Mfg. Co., No. 3:11-CV-974-L-BH, 2011 WL 13233312, at *1 & n.1 (N.D. Tex. May 12, 2011).Applying the good cause standard, Revive contends that "the very limited, narrow discovery that Revive is requesting in advance of the preliminary injunction hearing is necessary: (i) to identify the extent of [Revive]'s confidential information and trade secrets that were taken/misappropriated, retained, and used by [Hoelscher]; (ii) to determine the identity of [Hoelscher]'s new employer and the extent of [Hoelscher]'s competitive activities (including nature and location of such activities); (iii) to determine the extent of [Hoelscher]'s non-compliance with the restrictions set forth in the Employment Agreement -- specifically including the non-competition, non-solicitation, and non-disclosure obligations; (iv) to mitigate the ongoing irreparable harm Revive is suffering at [Hoelscher]'s hands by allowing Revive to determine the whereabouts and the extent of his misdeeds; and (v) to otherwise prepare for the preliminary injunction hearing."In response, relying on the "preliminary-injunction-style analysis" standard, Hoelscher essentially "argues that there's no need for discovery because the preliminary injunction shouldn't be granted." EYM Pizza, 2024 WL 1743363, at *1 (cleaned up). "But [he] should reach those merits arguments in [his] response to [Revive's] preliminary-injunction" request itself. Id. (cleaned up).In any event, the Court will not evaluate Revive's expedited discovery motion under a "preliminary-injunction-style analysis" but rather "considers the five factors" that courts have looked to under a good cause standard. Id.The Court likewise will not deny a motion for expedited discovery to support requested preliminary injunctive relief because Hoeschler believes that Revive should not have filed this action -- or perhaps should have sued another defendant, too -- and contends that he will prevail on a not-yet-filed Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, which, even when filed, does not automatically stay any discovery. See Escareno ex rel. A.E. v. Lundbeck, LLC, No. 3:14-cv-257-B, 2014 WL 1976867, at *2 (N.D. Tex. May 15, 2014).Turning to analyzing Revive's motion under the good cause standard, as to the first factor, a motion for a preliminary injunction has not been filed. But Revive has alleged its request for a preliminary injunction in its live complaint, which is supported by a declaration. Whether that amounts to a "verified complaint" is neither here nor there at this point, where Revive has not yet filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and where Revive's requested injunctive relief may not rely on the entirety of every enumerated allegation In its complaint.As to the second factor (the breadth of the discovery requests), Revive contends that it seeks limited discovery from Hoelscher related to his (i) possession, use, and disclosure of Revive's confidential information; and (ii) breaches of contract, both of which are central to the necessity of the preliminary injunction. And Revive explains that it only requests that the Court enter an order permitting it to serve expedited discovery on matters relevant to Revive's requested injunctive relief, after which Hoelscher (or a non-party) may serve responses and objections. The Court has reviewed the proposed requests for production and interrogatories and determines, without prejudice to any objections that may later be raised, that (for purposes of Revive's current request) the proposed requests are narrowly tailored to the necessary information sought.As to the third factor (the purpose for requesting the expedited discovery), the Court is persuaded, as Revive asserts, that expedited discovery (while the exception to the rule) is appropriate here to permit Revive to attempt to discover the existence and extent of the misuse of confidential or proprietary information that it has alleged, to support its request for preliminary injunctive relief.As to the fourth factor (the burden on the defendants to comply with the requests), the Court agrees with Revive's assessment that, under its proposal, the burden to comply with the limited expedited discovery in pr
|
|
Filing 14
REPLY filed by Revive Rx LLC re: #9 MOTION to Expedite Discovery (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s)) (Miller, David)
|
|
Filing 13
RESPONSE filed by Reed Hoelscher re: #9 MOTION to Expedite Discovery (Mitzner, Matthew)
|
|
Filing 12
ELECTRONIC ORDER: A response to Plaintiff Revive RX, LLC's #9 Expedited Motion and Brief in Support of Request for Expedited Discovery must be filed by Wednesday, April 23, 2025, and any reply must be filed by Monday, April 28, 2025. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge David L. Horan on 4/16/2025.)
|
|
Filing 11
ELECTRONIC Order Referring #9 MOTION to Expedite Discovery to Magistrate Judge David L. Horan for hearing if necessary and determination. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 4/16/2025) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 10
NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Matthew Miles Mitzner on behalf of Reed Hoelscher. (Filer confirms contact info in ECF is current.) (Mitzner, Matthew)
|
|
Filing 9
MOTION to Expedite Discovery filed by Revive Rx LLC with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) A-Requests for Production, #2 Exhibit(s) B-Interrogatories) (Fox, Stephen)
|
|
Filing 8
(Document Restricted) Sealed Attorney Contact Information (Sealed pursuant to SO 19-1, statute, or rule) filed by Revive Rx LLC (Miller, David)
|
|
Filing 7
WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed as to Reed Hoelscher. Waiver sent on 4/4/2025. (Fox, Stephen)
|
|
Filing 6
NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by David C Miller on behalf of Revive Rx LLC. (Filer confirms contact info in ECF is current.) (Miller, David)
|
|
Filing 5
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Revive Rx LLC. (Clerk QC note: No affiliate entered in ECF). (Fox, Stephen)
|
|
Filing 4
ELECTRONIC ORDER: The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's Verified Original Complaint and Application for Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief. Doc. No. 1. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 3.1(c), with its first filing with the Court, the Plaintiff must file a "Certificate of Interested Persons" and its "Disclosure Statement(s)," if applicable, as required by Fed R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(1) and (2). The Plaintiffs SHALL file these required items no later than April 10, 2025. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 4/3/2025) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 3
Summons Issued as to Reed Hoelscher. (ndt)
|
|
Filing 2
New Case Notes: A filing fee has been paid. Pursuant to Misc. Order 6, Plaintiff is provided the Notice of Right to Consent to Proceed Before A U.S. Magistrate Judge (Judge Horan). Clerk to provide copy to plaintiff if not received electronically. (ndt)
|
|
Filing 1
COMPLAINT against Reed Hoelscher filed by Revive Rx, LLC. (Filing fee $405; Receipt number ATXNDC-15389249) Clerk to issue summons(es). In each Notice of Electronic Filing, the judge assignment is indicated, and a link to the # Judges Copy Requirements and # Judge Specific Requirements is provided. The court reminds the filer that any required copy of this and future documents must be delivered to the judge, in the manner prescribed, within three business days of filing. Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek admission promptly. Forms, instructions, and exemption information may be found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: # Attorney Information - Bar Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) A, #2 Cover Sheet) (Fox, Stephen) (Attachment 2 replaced on 4/2/2025) (ndt).
|
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Texas Northern 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.
