From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

HALO ELECTRONICS, INC. v. PULSE ENGINEERING, INC.

United States District Court, D. Nevada
Dec 6, 2010
2:07-CV-00331-PMP-PAL (D. Nev. Dec. 6, 2010)

Opinion

2:07-CV-00331-PMP-PAL.

December 6, 2010


ORDER


The Court having read and considered Defendants Pulse Engineering, Inc. And Technitrol, Inc.'s Objection to the Magistrate Judge's October 14, 2010 Order, or in the Alternative, Motion to Exclude (Doc. #223) filed October 28, 2010, Plaintiff Halo's Response in Opposition to Defendants' Objections (Doc. #229-#230), Defendants Pulse Engineering, Inc., and Technitrol, Inc.'s Reply Brief (Doc. #231) filed November 15, 2010, and Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants' Reply Memorandum (Doc. #235) filed November 23, 2010, and finding that Magistrate Judge Leen's Order (Doc. #221) entered October 14, 2010 is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law, and good cause appearing,

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' Objection to the Magistrate Judge's October 14, 2010 Order, or in the Alternative, Motion to Exclude (Doc. #223) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (Doc. #235) is DENIED.

DATED: December 6, 2010.


Summaries of

HALO ELECTRONICS, INC. v. PULSE ENGINEERING, INC.

United States District Court, D. Nevada
Dec 6, 2010
2:07-CV-00331-PMP-PAL (D. Nev. Dec. 6, 2010)
Case details for

HALO ELECTRONICS, INC. v. PULSE ENGINEERING, INC.

Case Details

Full title:HALO ELECTRONICS, INC., Plaintiffs, v. PULSE ENGINEERING, INC., and…

Court:United States District Court, D. Nevada

Date published: Dec 6, 2010

Citations

2:07-CV-00331-PMP-PAL (D. Nev. Dec. 6, 2010)