TRUEPOSITION, INC. v. LM ERICSSON TELEPHONE COMPANY, 11-4574. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20120307c68
Visitors: 9
Filed: Mar. 06, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 06, 2012
Summary: ORDER ROBERT F. KELLY, Senior Judge. AND NOW this 6th day of March, 2012, upon consideration of the Motion for Protective Order filed by European Telecommunications Standards Institute ("ETSI"), the response in opposition by Plaintiff, Trueposition, Inc. ("Trueposition"), and ESTI's reply, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. the Motion (Doc. No. 89) is DENIED ; 2. ETSI's request for an oral argument is DENIED; and 3. the jurisdictional discovery between Trueposition and ETSI shall be conduct
Summary: ORDER ROBERT F. KELLY, Senior Judge. AND NOW this 6th day of March, 2012, upon consideration of the Motion for Protective Order filed by European Telecommunications Standards Institute ("ETSI"), the response in opposition by Plaintiff, Trueposition, Inc. ("Trueposition"), and ESTI's reply, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. the Motion (Doc. No. 89) is DENIED ; 2. ETSI's request for an oral argument is DENIED; and 3. the jurisdictional discovery between Trueposition and ETSI shall be conducte..
More
ORDER
ROBERT F. KELLY, Senior Judge.
AND NOW this 6th day of March, 2012, upon consideration of the Motion for Protective Order filed by European Telecommunications Standards Institute ("ETSI"), the response in opposition by Plaintiff, Trueposition, Inc. ("Trueposition"), and ESTI's reply, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. the Motion (Doc. No. 89) is DENIED;
2. ETSI's request for an oral argument is DENIED; and
3. the jurisdictional discovery between Trueposition and ETSI shall be conducted pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Source: Leagle
