Case Activity (11551)

1. Motion | Filed: July 30, 2026 | Entered: July 30, 2026 Mansory Design & Holding GMBH et al v. Unicorn Motors LLC et al

   Trademark | Florida Southern

   Protective Order

   Joint MOTION for Protective Order Stipulated by All Parties by EMC of Miami, Corp, Mansory Design & Holding GMBH. Responses due by 8/13/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Stipulated Protective Order)(Suero, Cleo)

2. Order | Filed: July 30, 2026 | Entered: July 30, 2026 NitroCream LLC v. Chill-N Nitrogen Ice Cream Franchising LLC et al

   Patent | Florida Southern

   Order on Motion for Protective Order

   PAPERLESS ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 120 Defendants' Motion for Protective Order.
   
   On August 1, 2025, Judge Gayles set a July 14, 2026 deadline for discovery in this case. ECF No. 70 . Despite Plaintiff's pending request to extend that and other deadlines, see ECF No. 85 , the July 14, 2026 discovery deadline remains in effect. Nevertheless, between July 10 and July 14, Plaintiff served discovery upon Defendants involving a deposition that cannot take place until after July 14 and discovery requests to which responses would be due after July 14. Defendants now seek a protective order concerning that discovery. Critically, Local Rule 26.1(d) provides:
   
    Party and non-party depositions must be scheduled to occur, and written discovery requests and subpoenas seeking the production
    of documents must be served in sufficient time that the response is due on or before the discovery cutoff date. Failure by the party
    seeking discovery to comply with this paragraph obviates the need to respond or object to the discovery, appear at the deposition,
    or move for a protective order.
   
   S.D. Fla. L.R. 26.1(d) (emphasis added). Because Defendants are already not obligated to respond to the written discovery at issue, appear at the deposition, or seek a protective order, Defendants' motion for a protective order is DENIED AS MOOT. Furthermore, because the filing of Defendants' motion for protective order was entirely unnecessary given Local Rule 26.1(d), Defendants' request for the costs and fees they incurred in connection with their motion are DENIED.
   
   If Judge Gayles were to grant an extension of the discovery deadline in this case, this Order would not preclude Plaintiff from timely re-serving the deposition notice and discovery requests that are the subject of Defendants' motion for protective order.
   
   Signed by Magistrate Judge Eduardo I. Sanchez on 7/30/2026. (EIS)

3. 11549 additional result(s)