Case Activity (879)

1. Motion | Filed: June 25, 2026 | Entered: June 25, 2026 Joby Aero, Inc. v. Archer Aviation Inc. et al

   Contract: Other | California Northern

   Administrative Motion to File Under Seal

   Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents Filed Under Seal in Accordance with the Court's Order of June 24, 2026, at Docket Entry 78 filed by Joby Aero, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Unredacted Declaration of Michael LaFond, # 2 Redacted Declaration of Michael LaFond, # 3 [Proposed] Order Granting Motion to Seal, # 4 Unredacted Exhibit A to LaFond, # 5 Redacted Exhibit A to LaFond, # 6 Unredacted Exhibit B to LaFond, # 7 Redacted Exhibit B to LaFond, # 8 Unredacted Exhibit C to LaFond, # 9 Redacted Exhibit C to LaFond, # 10 Unredacted Exhibit D to LaFond, # 11 Redacted Exhibit D to LaFond, # 12 Unredacted Exhibit E to LaFond, # 13 Redacted Exhibit E to LaFond, # 14 Unredacted Exhibit F to LaFond, # 15 Redacted Exhibit F to LaFond, # 16 Unredacted Exhibit G to LaFond, # 17 Redacted Exhibit G to LaFond, # 18 Unredacted Exhibit H to LaFond, # 19 Redacted Exhibit H to LaFond, # 20 Unredacted Exhibit I to LaFond, # 21 Redacted Exhibit I to LaFond, # 22 Unredacted Exhibit J to LaFond, # 23 Redacted Exhibit J to LaFond, # 24 Unredacted Exhibit K to LaFond, # 25 Redacted Exhibit K to LaFond, # 26... (truncated)

2. Order | Filed: June 25, 2026 | Entered: June 25, 2026 Aerosonic LLC v. Joby Aviation, Inc. et al

   Defend Trade Secrets Act (of 2016) | Florida Middle

   Order

   ENDORSED ORDER overruling Joby Aero, Inc.'s sealed objections to the Magistrate Judge's order denying Joby's motion to compel documents and supplemental interrogatory responses, take additional depositions, and for fees. (Doc. # 296). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) provides: "When a pretrial matter not dispositive of a party's claim or defense is referred to a magistrate judge to hear and decide, the magistrate judge must promptly conduct the required proceedings and, when appropriate, issue a written order stating the decision. A party may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a copy.... The district judge in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). "The 'clearly erroneous or contrary to law' standard of review is 'extremely deferential.'" Gaudet & Co., Inc. v. ACE Fire Underwriters Ins. Co., No. CV 21-00372-JB-MU, 2024 WL 171697, at *1 (S.D. Ala. Jan. 16, 2024). "[A] finding is clearly erroneous when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Holton v. City of Thomasville Sch. Dist., 425 F.3d 1325, 1350 (11th Cir. 2005) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). "A magistrate judge's order is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules of procedure." Tillman v. C.R. Bard, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-222-MMH-JBT, 2015 WL 1062182, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 11, 2015) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Here, Joby argues only that the order's conclusions were clearly erroneous. (Doc. # 296 at 7-11). Upon review of the order, objections, and response to objections (Doc. # 357-1), the Court finds that Judge Sansone's order was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Rather, the Court agrees with Judge Sansone on all issues, including that "Joby failed to make a prima facie showing that Aerosonic has violated prior discovery orders"; even if a prima facie case was established, "Aerosonic undertook all reasonable efforts to comply with the discovery orders"; and that "no discovery violations occurred to justify an extension" of the discovery deadline. (Doc. # 283 at 5, 8). Joby's mere disagreement with Judge Sansone's conclusions is not enough to establish clear error. The Court is not left with "the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Thus, the objections are overruled. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 6/25/2026. (DMD)

3. 877 additional result(s)