Power Probe Group, Inc. v. Innova Electronics Corporation

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided May 19, 2021·No. 2:21-cv-00332·Unknown

Opinion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Power Probe Group, Inc. v. Innova Electronics Corporation (Power Probe Group, Inc. v. Innova Electronics Corporation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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