Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Maschoff Brennan
-
Order | Filed: May 02, 2024 MetaQuotes Ltd. et al v. MetaQuotes Software Corp. et al
Trademark | California Central
Order
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE CONTEMPT by Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.: Plaintiffs MetaQuotes Software Corp. (MSC) and MetaQuotes, Ltd. filed this trademark infringement suit against several Defendants, including an entity registered in California with the same name as MSC (Fake MSC) and Jian He, the individual who incorporated Fake MSC. Jian He is the only Defendant who appeared. After a bench trial, the Court found that Defendant He had fraudulently impersonated Plaintiffs to obtain customer payment s for Plaintiffs' services. Because Fake MSC has not complied with the Court's order to take down its infringing records on the California Secretary of State's website, Fake MSC is ordered to show cause at a hearing in Courtroom 6C on 5/31/2024 08:30 AM before Judge Stanley Blumenfeld Jr., why it should not be held in contempt for violating the Court's order and why the Court should not order the relief requested by Plaintiffs. Fake MSC shall file a written response to this OSC no later than 5/20/2024. Plaintiffs shall promptly serve this order on Fake MSC by hand delivery to the Secretary of State, or to any person employed in the Secretary of State's office in the capacity of assistant or deputy. Plaintiffs shall also serve the motion by email on Defendant He, who is at least a former agent of Fake MSC. Plaintiffs shall file proof of service in compliance with this order no later than 5/10/2024. (gk)
-
Order | Filed: May 03, 2024 | Entered: May 03, 2024 Cricut v. Enough For Everyone et al
Contract: Other | Utah
Order on Motion for Leave to File Sealed Document
DOCKET TEXT ORDER granting 202 Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Sealed Document; granting 209 Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Sealed Document. These motions seek to seal Exhibit 15 to 199 Enough for Everyone, Inc.'s Reply in Support of its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, containing excerpts from the deposition of Len Blackwell which Plaintiff designated as confidential. Plaintiff asserts these excerpts contain confidential and proprietary business and financial information. Plaintiff's confidentiality interests articulated in the motion outweigh the public interest in access at this stage, where the deposition is referenced only briefly and generally in the reply, and the reply itself is publicly filed. Therefore, the motions are granted and Exhibit 15 (Doc. No. 203-1) shall remain sealed until otherwise ordered. This ruling may be revisited if this document is later relied on in ruling on substantive issues in this case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg on 5/3/2024. No attached document. (med)
-
Order | Filed: May 03, 2024 | Entered: May 03, 2024 Cricut v. Enough For Everyone et al
Contract: Other | Utah
Order on Motion for Leave to File Sealed Document
DOCKET TEXT ORDER granting in part and denying in part 193 Motion for Leave to File Sealed Document. Plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal certain exhibits to its 192 Opposition to Enough for Everyone, Inc.'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, including (1) Defendants' tax returns, and (2) emails and an invoice regarding tax issues which Defendants designated as confidential under the Standard Protective Order. Plaintiff also seeks to seal portions of the 192 Opposition quoting from and describing these documents. The motion is granted in part and denied in part as follows:
1) The motion to seal is granted as to the tax returns (Exs. 39-43, Doc. Nos. 194-7 through 194-11). To the extent the information contained in the tax records is relevant for summary judgment purposes, the information is publicly available in the parties' briefing. Defendants' confidentiality interests outweigh the public interest in access to the tax returns themselves at this stage, where the returns the contain additional, irrelevant financial information. Therefore, these exhibits shall remain sealed until otherwise ordered. This ruling may be revisited if the tax returns are later relied on in ruling on substantive issues in this case.
2) The motion to seal is denied without prejudice as to the emails and invoice (Exs. 30, 31, 32, 34, 37, 38, Doc. Nos. 194-1 through 194-6). Plaintiff did not state a reason to seal these documents; these documents appears similar to other exhibits previously unsealed pursuant to the court's November 13, 2023 docket text order (Doc. No. 211); and Defendants, as the designating parties, did not file a motion to seal them within seven days as required under DUCivR 5-3(b)(2)(C)(i). If Defendants seek to seal these exhibits, they must file a motion to seal within seven days of this order. If no such motion is filed, these exhibits will be unsealed without further notice.
3) The motion to seal is denied as to the redacted portions of the 192 Opposition brief. The redacted portions contain only general descriptions of the tax treatment of royalties in Defendants' returns, which is discussed in other public briefing. Therefore, the unredacted version of the Opposition (Doc. No. 194 (main document only)) shall be unsealed.
Signed by Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg on 5/3/2024. No attached document. (med)
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