FREE RANGE CONTENT, INC., et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
GOOGLE INC., Defendant.
United States District Court, N.D. California.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
October 11, 2016.
October 11, 2016.
Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract
Nature of Suit: 190 Contract: Other Source: PACER
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Free Range Content, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Patrick Howard , Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky, pro hac vice.
Free Range Content, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Robert F. Lopez , Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Simon Bahne Paris , Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett and Bendesky, Steve W. Berman , Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Jeff D. Friedman , Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.
Coconut Island Software, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Patrick Howard , Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky, pro hac vice, Robert F. Lopez , Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Simon Bahne Paris , Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett and Bendesky, Steve W. Berman , Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Jeff D. Friedman , Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.
Taylor Chose, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick Howard , Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky, pro hac vice, Robert F. Lopez , Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Simon Bahne Paris , Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett and Bendesky, Steve W. Berman , Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Jeff D. Friedman , Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.
Matthew Simpson, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick Howard , Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky, pro hac vice, Robert F. Lopez , Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Simon Bahne Paris , Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett and Bendesky, Steve W. Berman , Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Jeff D. Friedman , Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.
Super Cray Inc., Interested Party, represented by Randolph Gaw , Gaw, Poe LLP.
ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE JOINT REPORT #1
Re: Dkt. No. 132
HOWARD R. LLOYD, Magistrate Judge.
The parties have agreed to all but one term in a Stipulated Protective Order. They request that the court resolve their dispute over which language from the court's model protective order for litigation involving patents, highly sensitive...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.