From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dice Corp. v. Bold Techs., Ltd.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION
Jul 17, 2012
Case No. 11-CV-13578 (E.D. Mich. Jul. 17, 2012)

Opinion

Case No. 11-CV-13578

07-17-2012

DICE CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. BOLD TECHNOLOGIES, LTD, Defendant.

Craig W. Horn (P34281) Braun Kendrick Finkbeiner PLC Attorney for Plaintiff R. Christopher Cataldo (P39353) Jaffe, Raitt, Heuer & Weiss, PC Attorneys for Defendant


District Judge: Hon. Thomas L. Ludington


Magistrate Judge: Hon. Mark A. Randon


ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

WHEREAS, this matter having come before the Court for a hearing on June 12, 2012 on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery pursuant to its First Request for Production of Documents; and

WHEREAS, Defendant having objected to certain of the Plaintiff's document requests set forth in the First Request for Production of Documents; and

WHEREAS, the Court having issued its ruling on the record at the June 12, 2012 hearing, and the Court being otherwise advised in the premises;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's objections to the First Request for Production of Documents are hereby sustained and upheld, except that the Plaintiff shall produce: 1) a copy of the quote it provided to the customer referred to in the Complaint known as ESC Central; and 2) a copy of its standard price list. Defendant shall produce these documents within 10 business days of the date of entry of this Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in addition to any confidentiality protection available under the Court's existing Protective Order, the Defendant may designate the documents produced pursuant to this Order as "Attorney's Eyes Only" in which case the documents, and any information contained in the documents, may only be disclosed to Plaintiff's counsel of record (and any person employed by the counsel of record who is bound to the provisions of this Order), and shall not in any manner be disclosed to Dice Corporation or any representative, employee, director, officer, or agent thereof.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that after receipt of the documents produced pursuant to this Order, Plaintiff may motion the Court again to compel production of the remaining documents not produced pursuant to this Order, notwithstanding that said motion would fall outside discovery.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________

MARK A. RANDON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served on the parties of record on this date, July 17, 2012, by electronic and/or first class U.S. mail.

Melody Miles

Case Manager to

Magistrate Judge Mark A. Randon

(313) 234-5540

Approved for Entry:

______________________

Craig W. Horn (P34281)

Braun Kendrick Finkbeiner PLC

Attorney for Plaintiff

______________________

R. Christopher Cataldo (P39353)

Jaffe, Raitt, Heuer & Weiss, PC

Attorneys for Defendant


Summaries of

Dice Corp. v. Bold Techs., Ltd.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION
Jul 17, 2012
Case No. 11-CV-13578 (E.D. Mich. Jul. 17, 2012)
Case details for

Dice Corp. v. Bold Techs., Ltd.

Case Details

Full title:DICE CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. BOLD TECHNOLOGIES, LTD, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Jul 17, 2012

Citations

Case No. 11-CV-13578 (E.D. Mich. Jul. 17, 2012)