Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

13-13016 - Reddy v. Lowe's Companies, Inc. et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
13-13016 - Reddy v. Lowe's Companies, Inc. et al
June 17, 2014
PDF | More
Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered. This court hereby orders that the Parties Joint Motion for Entry of Protective Order 43 is ALLOWED IN PART AND DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART. To the extent that the proposed protective order governs the exchange of documents and information between the Parties, the motion is ALLOWED. Insofar as the proposed protective order governs the use of confidential information in any court proceeding or court filing, however, nothing in the protective order limits this courts power to make orders concerning the disclosure or impoundment of documents produced in discovery or at trial. To that end, the motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to a party making a particularized showing for the need for impoundment.This court is guided in this regard by First Circuit precedent and Local Rule 7.2. Because the public has a presumptive right of access to judicial documents only the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial records that come within the scope of the common-law right of access.2 The burden is thus on the impoundment-seeking party to show that impoundment will not violate the publics presumptive right of access.3 For that reason, when seeking to file under seal any confidential information, a party must show this court good cause for the impoundment.4 Specifically, the party seeking impoundment must make a particular factual demonstration of potential harm, not... conclusory statements5 as to why a document should be sealed. This court will not enter blanket orders for impoundment. IT IS SO ORDERED. (Geraldino-Karasek, Clarilde)
October 10, 2014
PDF | More
Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered re 93 Stipulation filed by Lowe's Companies, Inc. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims under Mass. G. L. c. 93A against defendant Lowe's Companies, Inc. are dismissed with prejudice. See attached Order. (MacDonald, Gail)
October 21, 2014
PDF | More
Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered granting in part and denying in part 57 Motion to Compel (MacDonald, Gail)
October 27, 2014
PDF | More
Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered re 105 Stipulation of Dismissal filed by Maureen Reddy (MacDonald, Gail)
November 12, 2014
PDF | More
Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered granting 113 Motion to Seal Documents. The sealed documents can now be filed on paper and under seal. (MacDonald, Gail)
November 18, 2014
PDF | More
Judge William G. Young: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER For the reasons stated above, on June 4, 2014, this Court ADOPTED Reddys proposed claim construction: The ornamental design for a bathroom vanity light shade, as shown and described in Figures 1-5. Elec. Clerks Notes, June 4, 2014, ECF No. 42. This construction is without prejudice to any future jury instructions on functional versus ornamental elements, prosecution history, prior art, or any other similar factors. SO ORDERED.(Sonnenberg, Elizabeth)
September 24, 2015
PDF | More
Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered. Defendant Lowe's Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement [#101] is ALLOWED, Defendant Evolution's Motion for Summary Judgment [#106] is ALLOWED insofar as it joins Lowe's argument on non-infringement and is otherwise DENIED as moot, Defendant Lowe's Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity [#98] is DENIED as moot. (IT, law2)
November 9, 2015
PDF | More
Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING 155 MOTION for Reconsideration re 149 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment; 165 MOTION for Reconsideration re 149 Order and 170 MOTION to Strike. See Attached Order. (DaSilva, Carolina)
July 18, 2016
PDF | More
Judge Indira Talwani: For the reasons set for the in the attached Order, Plaintiffs Counterclaims are DISMISSED as moot and the pending motionsDefendants Motion for Summary Judgment on Counterclaims of Invalidity and Unenforceability 175, Plaintiffs Motion to Lift Confidential Designation on a Selection of Impounded Documents 178 (sealed), Defendants Motion to Seal 179 and Defendants Motion to Dismiss Second, Third and Fourth Counterclaims are DENIED AS MOOT.Defendants shall submit a proposed judgment no later than July 25, 2016.SO ORDERED.(MacDonald, Gail) (Main Document 204 replaced on 7/26/2016) (DaSilva, Carolina).
July 26, 2016
PDF | More
Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered. JUDGMENT (MacDonald, Gail)