I will take a stab..but anyone feel free to correct:
#273:
ORDER granting 272 Motion for Pro hac vice appearance. Signed by District Judge Raymond A. Jackson on September 18, 2012. (Jackson, Raymond) Modified on 9/18/2012 to link gavel order to corrected Pro Hac Vice Order 272 filed by counsel as outlined in the Notice of Correction done by clerk on 9/18/12. Doc 272 took the place of Doc. 268 (ecav). (Entered: 09/18/2012)
# 272: A motion is allowed to be resubmitted (not sure by which party)---possibly due to error
Motion to appear Pro Hac Vice by James Ryerson and Certification of Local Counsel Donald C. Schultz Filing fee $ 75, receipt number 0422-3208296. by I/P Engine, Inc.. (Schultz, Donald) (Entered: 09/18/2012)
#271: ?
ORDER granting 267 Motion for Pro hac vice appearance. Signed by District Judge Raymond A. Jackson on September 18, 2012. (Entered: 09/18/2012)
#270: ?
ORDER granting 249 Motion for Pro hac vice appearance. Signed by District Judge Raymond A. Jackson on September 18, 2012. (Entered: 09/18/2012)
Notice of Correction re 268 Motion to appear Pro Hac Vice by James Ryerson and Certification of Local Counsel Donald C. Schultz Filing fee $ 75, receipt number 0422-3206773. Pro Hac Vice Motion does not contain the following: Bar Identification Number, applicants signature and signature of counsel. Clerk is removing Doc. 268 form the docket text and counsel is to refile completed Pro Hac Vic Motion. (ecav, ) (Entered: 09/18/2012) (Motion for another refiling --possible correction)
#269:
ORDER GRANTING 247 Motion and Memorandum in Support of Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery Sanctions, filed by the defendants on September 14, 2012. ECF No. 247.For good cause shown, the motion is GRANTED. The Supplemental Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery Sanctions (ECF No. 247 attach. 1) and the Declaration of Joshua L. Sohn in Support of Defendants' Supplemental Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery Sanctions (ECF No. 247 attach. 2) shall be DEEMED FILED. Entered and filed 9/18/12. (Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Bradford Stillman on 9/18/12). (ecav, ) (Entered: 09/18/2012)
\
This one is in favor of Google allowing and granting them certain blocking for discovery from VRINGO and possibly a "response" that can be filed as to why the plaintiff is not getting the documents and how Google should not have to turn them over or be penalized (sanctioned) for that--
my take--but not an attorney
Anyone know what all this means?
[color=red][/color]
