Four years ago I posted on Austin’s issues in the EDTX, NDTX, DNJ and NDIll. Now there’s a WDTX update in the form of a sanctions order.
In Waco for a hearing this morning, but it’s a Marshall case that’s caught my attention. Did you know there’s a trolley here now?
This order contains various rulings following a show cause hearing in a patent case, including the requirement that future motions by a party in that case must be signed by their local counsel.
So shoot me if I’m off topic. My engineering student (who is still looking for an internship in electrical and computer engineering this summer, if you know anyone) comes home from Baylor Thursday night for Easter and cooks a prototype of his new “folded steak” recipe (he cut an 8 oz. filet partway multiple times, unfolds it to cook, then folds it again over some kind of herbed butter because no one needs to live forever). It worked so well he made eight more for the whole family Saturday night.
You know what ALSO worked well recently? The plaintiff’s motion to amend its infringement contentions which not only worked – the defendant’s related motion for sanctions was denied as well. (The cross motion for sanctions for filing a motion for sanctions was also denied because of course).
Fourteen years ago now, two residents of the Eastern District of Texas drove the few miles that separated their homes from LBJ Freeway in Dallas, where they were rear-ended by a truck driver from Tyler, resulting in the death of their daughter/granddaughter in the back seat. Several months later the survivors of that collision, who had since moved out of the Eastern District, filed a product liability case in the Eastern District.
In its rulings (there were three) on the petition for mandamus of the district court’s order denying the defendant’s motion to transfer venue the Fifth Circuit held that it was the plaintiffs’ current residence, i.e. the residence at the time the suit was filed, that was relevant, not their residence at the time the cause of action arose. The consequences of that ruling have affected the actions of parties, district courts and the Federal Circuit ever since, including in a recent order publicly reprimanding an attorney for inaccurate factual contentions contained in his client’s declaration opposing a motion to transfer.
An issue that sometimes comes up in the at times frenetic world of complex civil litigation is when it is appropriate to caption a motion as “emergency”. A complete discussion of the topic is beyond the scope of this post, but there is a data point that’s worth mentioning.
You know those cases where an employee leaves the company and after being sued by the employee the company discovers that some things happened to documents relating to the claim? This is one of those cases, and the aspect we’re looking at is the motion for sanctions arising out of the alleged destruction of documents alleged by be relevant to the claims by the former employee.