Power Probe Group, Inc. v. Innova Electronics Corporation

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedMay 19, 2021
Docket2:21-cv-00332
StatusUnknown

This text of Power Probe Group, Inc. v. Innova Electronics Corporation (Power Probe Group, Inc. v. Innova Electronics Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Power Probe Group, Inc. v. Innova Electronics Corporation, (D. Nev. 2021).

Opinion

1 JAMES D. BOYLE, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 08384 2 Email: jboyle@nevadafirm.com JOANNA M. MYERS, ESQ. 3 Nevada Bar No. 12048 Email: jmeyers@nevadafirm.com 4 KENDALL LOVELL Nevada Bar No. 15590 5 Email: klovell@nevadafirm.com HOLLEY DRIGGS 6 400 South Fourth Street, Third Floor Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 7 Telephone: (702) 791-0308 Facsimile: (702) 791-1912 8 Samuel A. Long, Jr. (Pro Hac Vice) 9 Patrick B. Horne (Pro Hac Vice) Lucas D. Garber (Pro Hac Vice) 10 Tom BenGera (Pro Hac Vice) SHUMAKER, LOOP & KENDRICK, LLP 11 101 South Tryon Street, Suite 2200 Charlotte, North Carolina 28280-0002 12 Telephone: (704) 375-0057 Email: phorne@shumaker.com 13 along@shumaker.com lgarber@shumaker.com 14 tbengera@shumaker.com 15 Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants Power Probe Group, Inc. and Power Probe TeK, LLC 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 18 POWER PROBE GROUP, INC. and, Case No: 2:21-cv-00332-GMN-EJY POWER PROBE TEK, LLC, 19 STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants, PROTECTIVE ORDER 20 (Submitted Under LPR 1-4(a)) 21 vs. 22 INNOVA ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, 23 Defendant/Counterclaimant. 24 1 Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendants Power Probe, Inc. and Power Probe TeK, 2 LLC (“Plaintiffs”), and Defendant and Counterclaimant Innova Electronics Corporation 3 (“Defendant,” and together with Plaintiffs, the “Parties”), by and through their undersigned 4 counsel, hereby submit this Stipulation for Entry of Protective Order (the “Stipulation”)

5 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), LR II IA 6-2, and LPR 1-4(a). 6 On May 14, 2021, Plaintiffs and Defendant conducted a conference pursuant to Fed. R. 7 Civ. P. 26, LR II 26-1, and the Local Patent Rules. This Joint Motion is submitted within the 8 fourteen (14) day required deadline set forth in LPR 1-4(a). 9 /// 10 /// 11 /// 12 /// 13 /// 14 ///

15 /// 16 /// 17 /// 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// ] WHEREFORE, the Parties hereby jointly submit a [Proposed] Protective Order attached 2 || hereto as Exhibit A, and stipulate and move this Court to grant and enter the [Proposed] Protective 3 || Order. 4 || DATED this 19" day of May, 2021. DATED this 19" day of May, 2021. 5 || HOLLEY DRIGGS MARQUIS AURBACH COFFING 6 || 4s/ James D. Boyle /s/ Craig R. Anderson James D. Boyle, Esq. (NBN 08384) Craig R. Anderson, Esq. (NBN 06882) 7 || Joanna M. Myers, Esq. (NBN 12048) 10001 Park Run Drive Kendall Lovell (NBN 15590) Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 8 ||400 South Fourth Street, Third Floor Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 9 SHUMAKER, LOOP & KENDRICK, LLP LAW OFFICES OF KR ADAMO 10 Samuel A. Long, Jr. (Pro Hac Vice) Kenneth R. Adamo (Pro Hac Vice) 11 || Patrick B. Home (Pro Hac Vice) 360 West Illinois Apt. 620 Lucas D. Garber (Pro Hac Vice) Chicago, Illinois 60654 12 || Tom BenGera (Pro Hac Vice) 101 South Tryon Street, Suite 2200 Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimaint 13 || Charlotte, North Carolina 28280-0002 Innova Electronics Corporation Telephone: (704) 375-0057 14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants 15 || Power Probe Group, Inc. and Power Probe TeK, LLC 16 IT IS SO ORDERED: 17 18 19 . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 May 19, 2021 DATED: , 22 23 24

EXHIBIT A 1 JNAeMvaEdaS BDa. rB NOoY. 0L8E3,8 E4S Q. MARQUIS AURBACH COFFING Email: jboyle@nevadafirm.com 10001 Park Run Drive 2 Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 JOANNA M. MYERS, ESQ. 3 Nevada Bar No. 12048 Kenneth R. Adamo (Pro Hac Vice) Email: jmeyers@nevadafirm.com 4 KENDALL LOVELL Law Office of KR Adamo 360 West Illinois, Apt. 620 Nevada Bar No. 15590 5 Chicago, IL 60654 Email: klovell@nevadafirm.com 6 HOLLEY DRIGGS Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant 400 South Fourth Street, Third Floor Innova Electronics Corporation 7 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Telephone: (702) 791-0308 8 Facsimile: (702) 791-1912 9 Samuel A. Long, Jr. (Pro Hac Vice) Patrick B. Horne (Pro Hac Vice) 10 Lucas D. Garber (Pro Hac Vice) Tom BenGera (Pro Hac Vice) 11 SHUMAKER, LOOP & KENDRICK, LLP 101 South Tryon Street, Suite 2200 12 Charlotte, North Carolina 28280-0002 Telephone: (704) 375-0057 13 Email: phorne@shumaker.com along@shumaker.com 14 lgarber@shumaker.com tbengera@shumaker.com 15 Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants 16 Power Probe Group, Inc. and Power Probe 17 TeK, LLC 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 19 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 20 POWER PROBE GROUP, INC. and, Case No: 2:21-cv-00332-GMN-EJY POWER PROBE TEK, LLC, 21 [PROPOSED] Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants, 22 PROTECTIVE ORDER 23 vs. 24 INNOVA ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, 25 Defendant/Counterclaimant. 26 27 28 1 Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendants Power Probe, Inc. and Power Probe TeK, LLC (“Power Probe” and/or “Plaintiffs”) and Defendant and Counterclaimant Innova Electronics 2 3 Corporation (“Innova” or “Defendant”) (Plaintiffs and Defendant are collectively “the Parties”), 4 have submitted a Joint Motion for Entry of a [Proposed] Protective Order (the “Joint Motion”) 5 pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c), LPR. 1-4(a), and the Ninth Circuit’s directives in Kamakana v. 6 City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006). 7 The Court, having duly considered the Parties’ Joint Motion, and finding that good cause 8 exists for entry of a protective order, now ORDERS that the Parties shall observe the following 9 10 provisions of this Protective Order: 11 1. Scope. All disclosures, affidavits and declarations and exhibits thereto, 12 deposition testimony and exhibits, discovery responses, documents, electronically stored 13 information, tangible objects, information, and other things produced, provided, or disclosed in 14 the course of this action which may be subject to restrictions on disclosure under this Order, and 15 information derived directly therefrom (hereinafter referred to collectively as “documents”), 16 17 shall be subject to this Order as set forth below. As there is a presumption in favor of open and 18 public judicial proceedings in the federal courts, this Order shall be strictly construed in favor of 19 public disclosure and open proceedings wherever possible. The Order is also subject to the 20 Local Rules of this District and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on matters of procedure and 21 calculation of time periods. 22 2. Form and Timing of Designation. A party may designate documents as 23 24 confidential and restricted in disclosure under this Order by placing or affixing the words 25 “CONFIDENTIAL – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER” (hereinafter referred to as 26 “CONFIDENTIAL”), or “ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE 27 ORDER” (hereinafter referred to as “ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY”), or “OUTSIDE 28 1 ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER” (hereinafter referred to as “OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY”) (collectively “Protected Materials”) on the 2 3 document in a manner that will not interfere with the legibility of the document and that will 4 permit complete removal of the designation. Documents shall be designated prior to or at the 5 time of the production or disclosure of the documents. When a tangible object is produced for 6 inspection subject to protection under this Order, a photograph thereof shall be produced at the 7 time of inspection labeled with the designation CONFIDENTIAL, ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY 8 or OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY. Thereafter, any information learned or obtained as a 9 10 result of the inspection shall be subject to protection under this Order in accordance with the 11 applicable designation.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Power Probe Group, Inc. v. Innova Electronics Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/power-probe-group-inc-v-innova-electronics-corporation-nvd-2021.