Relevance and proportionality play a major role in the Court’s decision, as you might guess.
Parties’ fights on the eve of trial often focus the propriety of supplemental expert reports. That is certainly the case with respect to this order on one of the cases set for trial in Marshall on July 6.
It may not look like it, but this early 1960s photo marks the implicit beginning of venue in Marshall. So why don’t we look at a case of [i]mplicit venue?
For more on tulip poplars, click here. For more on motions to strike infringement contentions, keep reading.
The product users in this case succeeded in obtaining a motion to stay pending resolution of the declaratory judgment action filed by the manufacturer.
Kurt Vonnegut had a more poetic term for setbacks. For these three motions to dismiss, the word “denied” will just have to do.
There are a lot of unsuccessful motions to dismiss out there, and here are five of them.
The order is a late addition to the late-filed trilogy, but somehow that seems appropriate. Here we have a witness sought to be added on the eve of trial.
Although not hard and fast examples of what comes in and what doesn’t, limine rulings are still good indications – and this one has a phalanx of them (that’s an EDTX term of art, and I’ll explain why).
If you’re interested in substantive summary judgment analysis, this order addressing these defenses is for you.