DRAGON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LLC v. AT&T SERVICES INC., 13-2061-RGA (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Delaware
Number: infdco20151222b25
Visitors: 3
Filed: Dec. 21, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 21, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM RICHARD G. ANDREWS , District Judge . The Motion for Provisional Entry of Appearance (No. 13-2061, D.I. 120) 1 is DENIED. Interestingly, the Devlin Law Firm-Plaintiffs possible counsel — submits no proposed order with the motion. I do not think that is a coincidence. It is hard to figure out what sort of order the Devlin Law Firm would envision were I to grant its motion. That is because the Devlin Law Firm is essentially seeking an order to limit its potential liability for c
Summary: MEMORANDUM RICHARD G. ANDREWS , District Judge . The Motion for Provisional Entry of Appearance (No. 13-2061, D.I. 120) 1 is DENIED. Interestingly, the Devlin Law Firm-Plaintiffs possible counsel — submits no proposed order with the motion. I do not think that is a coincidence. It is hard to figure out what sort of order the Devlin Law Firm would envision were I to grant its motion. That is because the Devlin Law Firm is essentially seeking an order to limit its potential liability for co..
More
MEMORANDUM
RICHARD G. ANDREWS, District Judge.
The Motion for Provisional Entry of Appearance (No. 13-2061, D.I. 120)1 is DENIED. Interestingly, the Devlin Law Firm-Plaintiffs possible counsel — submits no proposed order with the motion. I do not think that is a coincidence. It is hard to figure out what sort of order the Devlin Law Firm would envision were I to grant its motion. That is because the Devlin Law Firm is essentially seeking an order to limit its potential liability for conduct it has not yet undertaken. I believe the Devlin Law Firm is seeking an advisory opinion on hypothetical conduct. I do not believe it is my role to grant prospective "immunity" to the Devlin Law Firm based on a proffer of its litigation plan if it enters an appearance in this case.
Thus, the Motion for Emergency Treatment (D.I. 126) is DISMISSED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The same motion was filed in the ten related cases. I cite only to No. 13-2061.
Source: Leagle
