Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

ARTHREX, INC. v. PARCUS MEDICAL, LLC, 2:10-cv-151-FtM-38DNF. (2014)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20141015f96 Visitors: 22
Filed: Oct. 14, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 14, 2014
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on Joint Motion for Return of Sealed Documents ( Doc. #528 ) filed on October 13, 2014. All parties filed various documents under seal during the course of this action. Now that this action has settled, the parties seek the return of various sealed documents from the Clerk's office. The Court finds the parties' request is due to be granted. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: Joint Motion for Return of Sealed
More

ORDER1

SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Joint Motion for Return of Sealed Documents (Doc. #528) filed on October 13, 2014. All parties filed various documents under seal during the course of this action. Now that this action has settled, the parties seek the return of various sealed documents from the Clerk's office. The Court finds the parties' request is due to be granted.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

Joint Motion for Return of Sealed Documents (Doc. #528) is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to return the sealed documents to the respective parties. The parties are directed to make contact with the appropriate docket clerk regarding the procedure for the return of the sealed documents.

DONE and ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. These hyperlinks are provided only for users' convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other Web sites, this court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.
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