• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
106 results

Noco Company v. Aukey Technology Co., Ltd., et al.

Docket 1:20-cv-02322, Ohio Northern District Court (Oct. 13, 2020)
Judge David A. Ruiz, presiding
Statutory Actions - Other
06/24/2024
... other briefing schedules remain in place. Magistrate Judge Reuben J. Sheperd on 6/24/2024. (Court Reporter: none. Time: 15 minutes). (D,JJ) (Entered: 06/25/2024)
06/17/2024
... 24, 2024 at 4:00 p.m. Eastern. Call-in instructions will be emailed to counsel of record. Magistrate Judge Reuben J. Sheperd on 6/17/2024. (Court Reporter: none. Time: 15 minutes). (D,JJ) (Entered: 06/17/2024)
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 46 Minute Order of Telephone Conference held on 5/3/2023

Document Noco Company v. Aukey Technology Co., Ltd., et al., 1:20-cv-02322, No. 46 (N.D.Ohio May. 4, 2023)
PROCEEDINGS: The Court held a telephonic status conference on May 3, 2023, with the
above counsel.
After discussion with the parties, the Court hereby GRANTS the parties’ Joint Motion for Extension of Discovery Deadlines.
Fact discovery is due by October 2, 2023; affirmative expert reports are due by November 28, 2023; defensive expert reports are due by January 5, 2024; rebuttal expert reports are due by February 2, 2024; expert discovery shall be concluded by March 1, 2024; and dispositive motions are due by April 26, 2024.
The parties shall notify the Court in the event they wish to be referred to the Magistrate Judge or the ADR panel for mediation/settlement.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 41 Stipulated Protective Order regarding confidential documents

Document Noco Company v. Aukey Technology Co., Ltd., et al., 1:20-cv-02322, No. 41 (N.D.Ohio Sep. 7, 2022)
All documents produced in the course of discovery, including initial disclosures, all responses to discovery requests, all deposition testimony and exhibits, other materials which may be subject to restrictions on disclosure for good cause, and information derived directly therefrom (hereinafter collectively “documents”), shall be subject to this Order concerning Confidential Information as set forth below.
Counsel shall maintain the originals of the forms signed by persons acknowledging their obligations under this Order for a period of 1 year after dismissal of the action, the entry of final judgment and/or the conclusion of any appeals arising therefrom.
Prior to production to another party, all copies, electronic images, duplicates, extracts, summaries or descriptions (hereinafter referred to collectively as “copies”) of documents designated as CONFIDENTIAL – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER or HIGHLY
Any and all documents that may have been subject to sealing during discovery or motion practice will not enjoy a protected or confidential designation if the matter comes on for hearing, argument, or trial in the courtroom.
After dismissal or entry of final judgment not subject to further appeal, the Clerk may elect to return to counsel for the parties or, after notice, destroy documents filed or offered at trial under seal or otherwise restricted by the Court as to disclosure.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 55 Unopposed Motion to stay Case Deadlines Pending Transition of Defense Counsel filed by Aukey ...

Document Noco Company v. Aukey Technology Co., Ltd., et al., 1:20-cv-02322, No. 55 (N.D.Ohio Dec. 22, 2023)
Motion to Stay
Defendants Aukey Technology Co., Ltd., Shenzhenshi Jiangyun Shangmaoyouxiangongsi, and Wodeshijikeji Shenzhen Youxiangongsi (collectively “Aukey” or “Defendants”) respectfully request that this Court stay all deadlines in this case pending the upcoming transition of defense counsel, which Defendants expect to be accomplished fairly quickly despite the holiday season.
How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.” Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (U.S. 1936) (citations omitted); see Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v. Perrigo Co., Case: 1:20-cv-02322-DAR Doc #: 55 Filed: 12/22/23 4 of 5.
The decision to stay proceedings “ordinarily rests with the sound discretion of the District Court.” Ohio Environmental Council v. U.S. Dist.
Here, staying the remaining pretrial deadlines pending the appearance of new defense counsel and the parties’ prompt negotiation of proposed new deadlines will promote judicial economy, preserve the parties’ respective resources, and accommodate the practical need for new defense counsel to learn the issues and advise their clients on important upcoming decisions, which will at least reshape and may moot the parties’ current discovery disputes.
For these reasons, the Defendants respectfully request that the Court enter an order: (a) staying all current case deadlines pending the appearance of new lead counsel for Defendants, (b) instructing the parties to: (i) promptly notify the Court of such appearance, and (ii) to confer thereafter promptly to develop a reasonably practical plan to accomplish the remaining fact discovery, and (iii) then jointly petition the Court for an appropriate extension of the current deadlines based on that agreed plan.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 54 Unopposed Motion by Peter J. Curtin to withdraw as attorney for Defendants filed by Aukey Technology ...

Document Noco Company v. Aukey Technology Co., Ltd., et al., 1:20-cv-02322, No. 54 (N.D.Ohio Dec. 19, 2023)
Motion to Withdraw as Counsel
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 83.9, Analects Legal LLC and its attorney of record, Peter J. Curtin (collectively “Analects”), hereby move the Court to grant them leave to withdraw as counsel for Defendants Aukey Technology Co., Ltd., Shenzhenshi Jiangyun Shangmaoyouxiangongsi, and Wodeshijikeji Shenzhen Youxiangongsi (collectively “Aukey”).
As required by Local Rule 83.9, Analects Legal has provided Aukey and the Plaintiff written notice of the undersigned’s intent to withdraw as counsel in this case.
Aukey consents to the proposed withdrawal and remains represented in this case for the time being by its local counsel — Jay R. Campbell and Carter S. Ostrowski of Tucker Ellis LLP. Aukey has begun to search for new lead counsel to replace the undersigned and expects that new lead counsel will be able to enter an appearance in this case within the next thirty days.
So, Analects Legal LLC hereby requests leave to withdraw as counsel for Defendants.
PageID #: 818 For the reasons set forth above and for good cause shown, Analects Legal LLC respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion and sign the attached Proposed Order to permit counsel’s withdrawal under LR 83.9.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 49 Motion for extension of all deadlines, including fact discovery deadline until at least ninety ...

Document Noco Company v. Aukey Technology Co., Ltd., et al., 1:20-cv-02322, No. 49 (N.D.Ohio Oct. 2, 2023)
Currently, NOCO and Defendants Aukey Technology Co., Ltd., (“Aukey”), Shenzhenshi Jiangyun Shangmaoyouxiangongsi (“HuiMing”), and Wodeshijikeji Shenzhen Youxiangongsi (“WorldUS”) (collectively, the “Parties”) are operating under the following case schedule: Event Deadline Fact Discovery Close October 2, 2023 Affirmative Expert Reports November 28, 2023 Defensive Expert Reports January 5, 2024
Alternatively, NOCO requests that the Court schedule a status conference, at its convenience, so that the Parties may discuss the additional time required to conduct discovery.
Even more prejudicially, Defendants made their fourth document production one (1) day before the close of fact discovery on October 1, 2023.
“District courts enjoy a wide latitude in ‘manag[ing] the discovery process and control[ling] their dockets.’” Deloitte Tax, 2022 U.S. Dist.
Accordingly, good cause exists to amend the case schedule as NOCO has not had sufficient opportunity to translate, review, follow-up on, and evaluate Defendants’ recent document productions.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 36 Order: All prior orders issued in this action, including (but not limited to) Initial Orders ...

Document Noco Company v. Aukey Technology Co., Ltd., et al., 1:20-cv-02322, No. 36 (N.D.Ohio Feb. 28, 2022)
The present action was recently reassigned to the undersigned District Court Judge pursuant to General Order 2022-03.
Any potential new discovery disputes should not be brought to the court’s attention until the procedures set forth in the Local Rules have been followed.
The parties should not present argument about any pending or potential discovery disputes.
(4) Identify the date and time of any upcoming conferences with the court set by the previous District Judge assigned to the matter.
However, the Joint Status Report is not an appropriate vehicle to raise issues and arguments more properly addressed by way of a motion.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 47 Motion (Notice) of Withdrawal of David A. Bernstein filed by Aukey Technology Co., Ltd., Shenzhenshi ...

Document Noco Company v. Aukey Technology Co., Ltd., et al., 1:20-cv-02322, No. 47 (N.D.Ohio Aug. 7, 2023)
83.9, attorney David A. Bernstein gives notice that he is withdrawing as counsel for Aukey Technology Co., Ltd., Shenzhenshi Jiangyun Shangmaoyouxiangongsi, and Wodeshijikeji Shenzhen Youxiangongsi.
Defendants have been informed of counsel’s withdrawal.
Defendants will remain represented by attorneys Jay R. Campbell of Tucker Ellis LLP and Peter J. Curtin.
The foregoing was filed electronically on August 7, 2023.
Service of this filing will be made by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system upon the following counsel of record
cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >>