Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Hytera Commc'ns Corp
District Court, E.D. Illinois
1Opinion of the Court
Jeffrey Cole, United States Magistrate Judge *991Judge Norgle has referred to me what Motorola has rather fancifully (and erroneously) titled its "Motion to Confirm Joint Discovery Plan." (Emphasis supplied). [Dkt. ## 269, 274]. The word "fancifully" is used advisedly, because there is no joint discovery plan, which is perhaps not surprising given the history of the case.1 The document Motorola impliedly asserts exists and which it says should be confirmed [Dkt. # 252], is actually two completely different discovery plans, one from Motorola and one from Hytera; and, arguably, the one from Hytera…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Roadway Express, Inc. v. PiperSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Dennis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
- A.H. Robins Co. v. PiccininCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1986
- Frank M. Rosetto, Individually and as Representatives of a Class of Similarly Situated Persons v. Pabst Brewing Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2000
- Bond v. UtrerasCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2009
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.