Legal Opinion

Jose Luis Pelaez, Inc. v. Scholastic, Inc.

District Court, S.D. Illinois

Decided May 7, 2018No. 1:16–cv–02791 (VM) (SDA)PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

STEWART D. AARON, United States Magistrate Judge:

Non-party, Peter Menzel ("Menzel"), by and through his counsel, Harmon Seidman Bruss & Kerr, LLC,1 moves to intervene in this action, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b), to seek modification of the Protective Order (ECF No. 31) to permit Menzel to review any evidence of Scholastic's infringements produced in this case, and use any "relevant evidence" in Menzel's own case against Defendant Scholastic, Inc. ("Defendant" or "Scholastic") that is pending in federal court in California. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Menzel's motion.

BACKG…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. AT & T Corp. v. Sprint Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2005
  2. Catanzano v. WingCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1996
  3. In Re Teligent, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2011
  4. In re Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer (EPDM) Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2009
  5. Nielsen Co. v. Success Systems, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2015

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Allianz Global Investors GmbH v. Bank Of America CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2021
  2. Arcesium LLC v. Advent Software, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2022
  3. Giuffre v. MaxwellDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2020

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API