ORACLE USA, INC. v. RIMINI STREET, INC., 2:10-CV-00106-LRH-PAL. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20150806b00
Visitors: 6
Filed: Aug. 04, 2015
Latest Update: Aug. 04, 2015
Summary: ORDER LARRY R. HICKS , District Judge . Before the court are defendants Rimini Street, Inc. ("Rimini Street") and Seth Ravin's ("Ravin") (collectively "defendants") motion for leave to file reply to motion to exclude testimony (Doc. #627) and motion for leave to file reply to motion to exclude evidence regarding non-party (Doc. #630). The court has reviewed the motions along with the attached reply briefs and finds that good cause exists to allow defendants to file the attached reply brief
Summary: ORDER LARRY R. HICKS , District Judge . Before the court are defendants Rimini Street, Inc. ("Rimini Street") and Seth Ravin's ("Ravin") (collectively "defendants") motion for leave to file reply to motion to exclude testimony (Doc. #627) and motion for leave to file reply to motion to exclude evidence regarding non-party (Doc. #630). The court has reviewed the motions along with the attached reply briefs and finds that good cause exists to allow defendants to file the attached reply briefs..
More
ORDER
LARRY R. HICKS, District Judge.
Before the court are defendants Rimini Street, Inc. ("Rimini Street") and Seth Ravin's ("Ravin") (collectively "defendants") motion for leave to file reply to motion to exclude testimony (Doc. #627) and motion for leave to file reply to motion to exclude evidence regarding non-party (Doc. #630).
The court has reviewed the motions along with the attached reply briefs and finds that good cause exists to allow defendants to file the attached reply briefs for the record. However, the court has reviewed the reply briefs and finds that defendants' replies do not change the court's rulings on the underlying evidentiary motions (Doc. #636). Therefore, the court shall grant defendants' motions and allow defendants to file the attached replies on the record.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants' motion to file reply in support of their motion to exclude expert testimony (Doc. #627) is GRANTED. Defendants shall have five (5) days to file the reply brief attached to the motion (Doc. #627, Exhibit 1).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants' motion to file reply in support of their motion to exclude evidence regarding non-party (Doc. #630) is GRANTED. Defendants shall have five (5) days to file the reply brief attached to the motion (Doc. #630, Exhibit 1).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
