Motion to Exclude Nonretained Experts Granted in Part

Plaintiffs listed a couple dozen medical providers and treating docs in this FTCA case arising out of a collision with a post office truck. The Government thought that was too many and what was there was thin as an airmail envelope. Judge Mazzant agreed in part, striking the unnamed medical providers and custodians of records, and requiring that the named providers be disclosed in more detail. The order is a useful one for the standards for designating nonretained experts, as well as when an expert may be added.

You Miss 100% of the Shots You Don’t Take

And you missed this one too. Actually, the parties just needed some clarification as to the scope of Judge Payne’s grant of a motion for partial summary judgment on a license defense The defendant requested clarification that the finding that the accused products were “Combined Licensed Products and Services” under one theory of infringement extended to all of the plaintiff’s infringement theories.

Statutory Damages & Attorney Fees for Austin Trademark & Copyright Lawyers

The court granted the plaintiff’s request for default judgment in this photo copyright case. The part that is of interest is the amount of the award. The court declined to award the requested statutory maximum of $30,000, finding that prior cases from the Austin courthouse counseled a number closer to the $750 minimum, and awarded $3,500. The court similarly trimmed the award of fees, accepting the number opf hours and costs, but rejecting the plaintiff’s proposed $700 hourly rate based on DC rates, finding that $475 made sense for the Austin area.

Motion for Summary Judgment Denied; Claims Dismissed

No, that’s not a typo. Plaintiff sought summary judgment on all the claims in the case – both against her and as to her counterclaims. After requesting supplemental briefing on the viability of the counterclaims, Judge Jordan denied the motion as to her counterclaims under the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2701, et seq., and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1030, et seq., and then dismissed them under FRCP 56(f) because both failed as a matter of law.

Timing of Contention Interrogatories

Nothing like a good contention interrogatory order – but then again this is coming from someone that likes JMOL rulings. Judge Gilliland rejected the defendant’s claims which, among other things, argued that it should not have to respond to contention rogs until expert reports were due. Defendant’s objection to providing expert opinions was sustained, but its objection to providing answers containing general factual information was overruled. Defendant was ordered to respond by providing the general factual basis for its contentions—which may be supplemented as discovery progresses.