U.S. District Judge Paul Byron for Middle Florida in Orlando ordered Telephone Consumer Protection Act defendant IMCMV Holdings, parent company of Margaritaville restaurants, to show cause within 14 days why it failed to comply with his Feb. 9 procedural order directing counsel to file a certificate of interested persons within two weeks of an appearance in the case. Failure to comply with the show cause order “may result in the imposition of appropriate sanctions without further notice,” said Byron’s signed order Monday (docket 6:23-cv-00223). Plaintiff Racheal Paul alleges she listed her cellphone number on the national do not call registry in April 2014, yet she received two text solicitations Jan. 29 offering a free appetizer if she visited a Margaritaville restaurant (see 2303210003).
The district court erred when it granted summary judgment to Poly and its hardware and software architect Wilson Chung and in denying Cisco's motions for spoliation sanctions, said Cisco’s mediation questionnaire Friday (docket 23-15590) in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Cisco is asserting trade secret misappropriation claims against Poly and Chung under the Defend Trade Secrets Act and California Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Cisco alleges Chung improperly kept “substantial Cisco confidential information” for the Cisco 730 headset and the Webex Desk Pro when he left Cisco in 2019 to join Poly, then disclosed those trade secrets to other Poly employees (see 2304220002), said the questionnaire. Cisco also alleges Poly and Chung destroyed evidence “that would have illuminated the full extent of their misappropriation, it said. Cisco seeks damages in the form of a “reasonable royalty,” and an injunction barring further misappropriation of its trade secrets by Poly and Chung, it said. Poly has sought attorneys' fees and costs, Chung sought costs, it said. Cisco opposed both motions, and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California “has yet to rule on either request,” it said. Cisco and Poly also submitted motions to seal certain exhibits that were submitted in connection with the parties' summary judgment and spoliation, and those motions “also remain pending,” it said.Cisco’s opening brief in its 9th Circuit appeal is due July 28, and the answering brief from Poly and Chung is due a month later.
Standard General received only 15 to 20 minutes' notice from the FCC that the agency was about to issue a hearing designation order, and Standard doesn’t plan to go away if the Tegna deal falls apart, Managing Partner Soohyung Kim said in an interview Monday. “I don’t think a regulator should dislike the industry it regulates,” he told former FCC Commissioner Mike O’Rielly during an onstage Q&A at the NAB Show Tuesday.
U.S. District Judge Colm Connolly for Delaware denied Nimitz Technologies’ motion for reconsideration of his April 4 show-cause order asking why the company shouldn’t be sanctioned for its failure to comply with his Nov. 10 order (see 2304110044), in an oral order Tuesday (docket 1:21-cv-01247). The Nimitz motion “lacks merit,” said the judge. The November order demanded production of Nimitz bank records, emails and other materials for Connolly’s investigation into whether third-party funding contributed to the filing of four Nimitz patent infringement lawsuits. Nimitz asserted it was under no obligation to produce the materials until the U.S. Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit issued a mandate of its denial of mandamus relief. Connolly said the Federal Circuit’s denial of the Nimitz petition without an opinion itself constituted a mandate.
Amazon wants the U.S. District Court for Southern Indiana in Indianapolis to strike its outside counsel, Robert Cruzen of Klarquist Sparkman, from the plaintiffs' preliminary witness list, said Amazon’s motion Tuesday (docket 1:22-cv-02246). Plaintiffs Annie Oakley Enterprises and its owner Renee Gabet allege Amazon ignored the trademark infringement conduct of its third-party sellers (see 2302160029).
U.S. District Chief Judge Colm Connolly for Delaware canceled Tuesday’s scheduled appearance of Nimitz Technologies’ outside counsel, George Pazuniak of O’Kelly & O’Rourke, to show cause why he and the company shouldn’t be sanctioned for their failure to comply with the judge’s Nov. 10 order bank records, emails and other materials. Pazuniak responded Thursday to the April 4 show-cause order by producing, in camera, materials Connolly demanded for his investigation into whether any third-party funding contributed to the filing of Nimitz patent infringement lawsuits against Bloomberg, BuzzFeed, Cnet and Imagine Learning (see 2304070038). Pazuniak stood by his assertions, in a motion for reargument Monday (docket 1:21-cv-01247), that he wasn’t free to produce the materials for Connolly until the U.S. Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit produced a mandate in connection with its denials of Pazuniak’s petitions for mandamus relief. Connolly’s show-cause order asserted the Federal Circuit’s denial of his petition without an opinion constituted a mandate. Pazuniak regrets “if there is any misunderstanding as to the obligation to comply” with Connolly’s Nov. 10 production order, said his motion for reargument. “However, in view of the facts and law, Nimitz and its counsel were not required to have delivered to the Court the documents which the Court requested, or, at least, reasonably believed that they had no such obligation until a mandate was issued,” it said. “Given that the required production was unprecedented in requiring production of communications which were protected by the attorney-client privilege, Nimitz and its counsel acted properly and ethically in not voluntarily producing the documents earlier.”
Nimitz Technologies’ outside counsel George Pazuniak of O’Kelly & O’Rourke responded Thursday to the April 4 show-cause order of Senior U.S. District Judge Colm Connolly for Delaware by producing, in camera, the emails, bank records and other materials Connolly demanded in his Nov. 10 order. Connolly ordered the production of the materials for his investigation into whatever third-party funding may have contributed to the filing of four Nimitz patent infringement lawsuits against Bloomberg, BuzzFeed, Cnet and Imagine Learning (see 2212060020). Pazuniak resisted the November order while he unsuccessfully sought mandamus relief on attorney-client privilege grounds from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Connolly’s show cause order demanded that Pazuniak appear before him in person April 11 and be prepared to explain why he and Nimitz shouldn’t be sanctioned for their failure to comply with the November order for the materials (see 2304050023). It’s unclear whether Pazuniak’s sudden production of the materials will be enough to placate Connolly or whether he will still appear before the judge to explain why the noncompliance lasted for nearly two months after the Federal Circuit last denied Pazuniak's request for mandamus relief. The materials production “is made without prejudice to Nimitz’ continuing objection to the production of documents which are protected by the attorney-client privilege, and to the requirement to produce any documents,” said Pazuniak's signed submission Thursday (docket 1:21-cv-01247).
Chief U.S. District Judge Colm Connolly for Delaware ordered Nimitz Technologies’ outside counsel George Pazuniak to appear before him in person April 11 and be prepared to show cause why he and Nimitz shouldn’t be sanctioned for their failure to produce bank records, emails and other materials the judge demanded in November, said his memorandum order Tuesday (docket 1:21-cv-01247). Connolly ordered the production of the materials for his investigation into whatever third-party funding may have contributed to the filing of three Nimitz patent infringement lawsuits against Bloomberg, BuzzFeed, Cnet and Imagine Learning (see 2212060020). Nimitz and Pazuniak resisted Connolly’s order on grounds that the documents he was demanding would violate attorney-client privilege. The judge had several courtroom confrontations with Pazuniak before issuing his Nov. 10 order, but he maintained a low profile as Nimitz and Pazuniak unsuccessfully sought mandamus relief from the U.S. Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit. It’s now nearly two months since the Federal Circuit's last mandate issued, denying Nimitz and Pazuniak relief, “thereby returning these cases” to Connolly’s jurisdiction, but still no compliance with his November instructions, said his order.
Google employees “intentionally shifted relevant business discussions to communication methods they knew would delete in 24 hours to circumvent Google’s own litigation holds and discovery obligations,” said the 38 plaintiff states and the District of Columbia in their reply brief Tuesday (docket 1:20-cv-03010) in U.S. District Court for D.C. in support of sanctions against Google (see 2302240034). Google “encouraged this conduct by creating a culture of communicating in chats that would be destroyed even with the existence of a litigation hold,” said the reply. Google failed to take “reasonable steps to monitor the effectiveness of its litigation hold and ensure employees were abiding by its terms,” it said. Google, as a result, “failed to ensure that its litigation responsibilities were fulfilled and thus permitted the spoliation of relevant materials,” it said.
“Sanctions are warranted” against Google for failing to preserve messages on its internal chat system before and during the antitrust multidistrict litigation challenging Google’s Play Store practices as anticompetitive, said a “findings of fact” order signed Tuesday (docket 3:21-md-02981) by U.S. District Judge James Donato for Northern California in San Francisco. The plaintiffs in the four consolidated cases that comprise the MDL include 38 states and the District of Columbia, plus Epic Games, the Match Group and a group of consumers, all alleging Google monopolized Android app distribution and availability through Google Play.