Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

GOODMAN v. SMART MODULAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC., H-14-1380. (2015)

Court: District Court, S.D. Texas Number: infdco20150911b69 Visitors: 26
Filed: Sep. 10, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 10, 2015
Summary: ORDER GRAY H. MILLER , District Judge . Pending before the court is a report and recommendation ("R&R") from Special Master Scott Woloson regarding David Fink's first and second urgent motions for a protective order (Dkts. 65, 66). Dkt. 71. Fink seeks a protective order limiting the scope of an upcoming deposition of Fink. Dkt. 65. The Special Master shortened the response time for the parties to object to the R&R to five (5) days, as the deposition date is September 11, 2015. Dkt. 71. Plai
More

ORDER

Pending before the court is a report and recommendation ("R&R") from Special Master Scott Woloson regarding David Fink's first and second urgent motions for a protective order (Dkts. 65, 66). Dkt. 71. Fink seeks a protective order limiting the scope of an upcoming deposition of Fink. Dkt. 65. The Special Master shortened the response time for the parties to object to the R&R to five (5) days, as the deposition date is September 11, 2015. Dkt. 71. Plaintiff James B. Goodman timely filed an objection, arguing that the R&R contains an error on the first page relating to Goodman's contentions in this lawsuit. Dkt. 72. Defendant SMART Modular Technologies, Inc. ("SMART") filed a motion to adopt the Special Master's report subject to Fink's objection. Dkt. 73. SMART's motion (Dkt. 73) is GRANTED. Goodman's objection (Dkt. 72) is SUSTAINED. The court ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. 71), with the exception of first sentence of the background section of the R&R, which does not impact the substantive reasoning or outcome.

Accordingly, Fink's motions for a protective order(Dkts. 65, 66) are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The request for a protective order limiting the scope of Fink's deposition as it relates to the topic of Goodman's pre-suit investigation and the topic of the lost documents is DENIED. The request for a protective order limiting the scope of Fink's deposition as it relates to the topic of negotiations or licenses concerning the `315 Patent is GRANTED. SMART's motion for fees is DENIED. It is ORDERED that Fink's deposition shall be strictly limited to the topics addressed in the R&R.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer