Case Activity (100702)

1. Motion | Filed: August 20, 2026 | Entered: August 20, 2026 In re: AT&T Mobility Wireless Data Services Tax Litigation

   890 Other Statutory Actions | Illinois Northern

   Motion

   MOTION by svc Service List for disbursement of funds Directing the Payment of Unclaimed Funds in the New Jersey Sub Accounts to the State of New Jersey

   (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Frickleton, James) (Entered: 08/20/2026)

2. Order | Filed: August 20, 2026 | Entered: August 20, 2026 Aerosonic LLC v. Joby Aviation, Inc. et al

   Defend Trade Secrets Act (of 2016) | Florida Middle

   Sealed Order on Sealed Motion Order on Motion for Sanctions

   ENDORSED ORDER: The Court denies Joby Aero's sealed motion for sanctions. (Doc. ## 449, 450). "A finding of bad faith... is required to impose sanctions based upon the court's inherent power." Wandner v. Am. Airlines, 79 F. Supp. 3d 1285, 1297 (S.D. Fla. 2015). "[T]he federal district courts possess the inherent power to sanction fraudulent litigation practices by dismissal." Iglesias v. J.C. Penney Corp., No. 8:09-cv-1608-VMC-TGW, 2010 WL 4854973, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 20, 2010). "Dismissal is appropriate where clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system's ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party's claim or defense." Id. Joby has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Aerosonic tampered with or spoliated evidence. On the contrary, the Court credits Aerosonic's explanation for the packing slip issue: "When printing out the slip on May 29, 2025, Aerosonic's electronic database merged the data created and stored in April of 2022 into the current form template as it existed on May 29, 2025. This was the template that Ms. Granger had updated on April 17, 2025 [to add the 'expressly conditional' language and other changes].... When Aerosonic produced [the packing slip printed in May 2025], Aerosonic and its counsel did not know that there were any differences between the version [from May 2025] and the original version shipped to Joby in April 2022, other than the updated print date." (Doc. # 467 at 6-7). This version of events is convincingly supported by the declarations of Aerosonic employees Bri Granger and Greg Van Bemden. (Doc. ## 467-1, 467-2). Thus, the filing of the packing slip printed in 2025 was not done with knowledge of the language added to the slip by Aerosonic's database nor with an intent to deceive the Court. Furthermore, after Joby notified Aerosonic of the issue and Aerosonic investigated, Aerosonic filed a notice of withdrawal, withdrawing the packing slip exhibit "and related briefing" from consideration on summary judgment and assuring that Aerosonic "will not affirmatively introduce the Packing Slip at trial." (Doc. # 436 at 1-2). Although Joby takes issue with the language of the notice of withdrawal, the Court finds the notice sufficiently withdrew the packing slip printed in May 2025 from the case and alerted the Court that it should not consider that packing slip in ruling on summary judgment. Indeed, the Court ruled on the motions for partial summary judgment without considering the packing slip printed in May 2025. (Doc. # 440). As a result, Joby was not prejudiced. Yet, despite telling Aerosonic that Joby would not move for sanctions if Aerosonic withdrew the packing slip (Doc. # 436-1), Joby filed the instant motion, seeking the ultimate sanction against Aerosonic and taking up additional judicial resources. Considering all the circumstances, Aerosonic did not act in bad faith and no sanction against Aerosonic is warranted. No evidentiary hearing is needed. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 8/20/2026. (DMD)

3. 100700 additional result(s)