Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Kelley Drye
-
Filed: May 07, 2024 | Entered: May 07, 2024 Hyland v. Walgreen Co.
890(Other Statutory Actions) | Illinois Northern
Minute
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Waived Arguments from Walgreens' Reply Brief in Support of its Motion to Dismiss and for Leave to File a Two-Page Surresponse to Address New Case Law Cited for the First Time in Walgreens' Reply Brief in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss 49 . The decision whether to grant a motion for leave to file a sur-response is within the Court's discretion. See Johnny Blastoff, Inc. v. Los Angeles Rams Football Co., 188 F.3d 427, 439 (7th Cir. 1999). Because nothing in the motion indicates that surresponse is warranted, the Court denies motion 49 . Without prejudging Defendant's motion to dismiss 29 , generally, the Court will not consider any arguments or cases, or exhibits, asserted for the first time in a reply. See Narducci v. Moore, 572 F.3d 313, 323 (7th Cir. 2009). That said, the parties are reminded that the Court takes any allegation of improper arguments, authority, or evidence raised for the first time on reply seriously, and any such allegations against an opposing party should be meritorious. Mailed notice (ags) (Entered: 05/07/2024)
-
Notice | Filed: May 07, 2024 | Entered: May 07, 2024 USOR Site PRP Group v. A&M Contractors, Inc. et al
Environmental Matters | Texas Southern
Designation of Attorney in Charge
DESIGNATION of Sean M. Walsh as attorney in charge of Rescar Companies, Inc., filed. (Walsh, Sean)
-
Order | Filed: May 07, 2024 | Entered: May 07, 2024 Valentine et al v. Crocs, Inc.
Other Fraud | California Northern
Order on Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Partys Material Should Be Sealed
[IN-CHAMBERS TEXT ONLY ORDER]: The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs' administrative motions to consider whether certain portions of the Parties' Discovery Letter Briefs Nos. 5 and 6 should be sealed. Dkts. 78 80 . At the May 3, 2024 hearing before this Court, the Parties' counsel indicated that at least some of the sealing requests were unnecessary, and certain phrases that are requested to be redacted in the administrative motions were discussed in open court. In light of the representations by counsel, Plaintiffs' administrative motions to seal are DENIED without prejudice. The Court ORDERS the Parties to promptly meet and confer regarding refiling the motions by limiting redactions for confidentiality in the Parties' Discovery Letter Briefs Nos. 5 and 6 (Dkts. 75 79 ) only to phrases or material which are truly confidential and necessary (taking into account that certain information was already discussed in open court). No later than May 14, 2024, the Parties shall file revised proposed redacted versions of Discovery Letter Briefs Nos. 5 and 6 that redact only the "truly sensitive information" within those documents (see Civil L.R. 79-5(a)), or if the Parties determine that no redactions are needed in either or both of the Discovery Letter Briefs, the Parties shall file unredacted versions of those documents. Signed by Judge Peter H. Kang on May 7, 2024. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (phklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/7/2024)
Stay ahead of the curve
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
- Archive of over 450,000 articles
- Database of over 2.1 million cases
- 62,000+ organization-specific pages.
- Daily and real-time news and case alerts on organizations, industries, and customized search queries.
- Significant legal events involving law firms, companies, industries, and government agencies.
- Learn more
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login