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.

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.

Motion to Transfer Granted Due to Forum Selection Clause

Judge Mazzant noted that “only in unusual cases will the public factors defeat the motion to transfer when there is a valid, enforceable forum selection clause.” Because he concluded that the Forum Selection Clauses are valid and enforceable and the public factors only slightly weigh against transfer, he determined that this was not one of those unusual cases. Thus the case was transferred to the District of Minnesota pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

Patent Infringement Case Dismissed With Prejudice Due to Unclean Hands

After conducting a bench trial on defendant Samsung’s equitable defenses and nonpatent counterclaims in advance of a jury trial on the plaintiff’s patent infringement claims, Judge Gilstrap concluded in an 118 page opinion that Samsung had established by clear and convincing evidence the required elements of its unclean hands defense, and accordingly found that the plaintiffs’ asserted patents were unenforceable.

Case Dismissed Following Plaintiff’s Joinder in First-Filed Action; Recusal Denied

Judge Barker previously stayed this action seeking bad things to happen to a proposed FTC rule in favor of a prior-filed action in Dallas, and having been informed that the plaintiff had intervened in that case, now dismissed the case. This order also rejected a request by a nonparty that he recuse himself – a request none of the parties joined in – and explained why recusal was not required under the Code of Conduct for United States Judges and 28 U.S.C. § 455.

Motion to Compel Mediation Granted

Judge Mazzant granted the individual defendants’ motions to compel a former employer to submit the issue of the arbitrability of its claims against them to arbitration. He denied the defendants’ new employer’s motion, however, finding that the issue of arbitrability as to nonsignatories should be resolved by the court, and that the claims against the nonsignatory were not arbitrable – except for the conspiracy to breach of fiduciary duty claim, which would be arbitrable if the arbitrator decided that it was.