Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hydro-Blok USA LLC v. Wedi Corp.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

October 24, 2019

HYDRO-BLOK USA LLC, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
WEDI CORP., Defendant,
v.
HYDROBLOK INTERNATIONAL LTD., Counter-defendant. WEDI CORP., Plaintiff,
v.
BRIAN WRIGHT, et al., Defendants.

          MINUTE ORDER

         The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge:

         (1) The unopposed motion to seal brought by Brian Wright, Sound Product Sales L.L.C., Hydro-Blok USA LLC, and Hydroblok International, Ltd. (collectively, “Wright”), docket no. 272, is GRANTED, and Exhibits 1-11 to the Declaration of John Whitaker, docket nos. 274-279, shall remain under seal.

         (2) The unopposed motion to seal brought by wedi Corp. (“wedi”), docket no. 281, is GRANTED, and Exhibits 1-6 to the Declaration of Justin Kanter, docket no. 284, shall remain under seal.

         (3) wedi's motions in limine, docket no. 269, are GRANTED in part, DENIED in part, and DEFERRED in part, as follows:

(a) Motion in Limine No. 1 to exclude “evidence, argument, and suggestion concerning prior litigation involving the parties, ” is
• DEFERRED as to the prior arbitration between wedi and Wright;
• GRANTED as to the wedi/Seattle Glass Block case; Wright does not appear to base its abuse of process claim on any conduct related to Case No. C18-636 TSZ; and
• DENIED in part as to the patent-related matters litigated in this case and the consolidated case, No. C15-615 TSZ, and DEFERRED in part as to the other dismissed claims in the present action.
With respect to the prior arbitration and the dismissed claims other than the patent-related matters, counsel shall be prepared to discuss at the telephonic hearing scheduled for 10:30 a.m. on October 25, 2019, whether the parties can agree on a statement to be read by the Court to the jury explaining the procedural posture of this matter and telling the jurors that they need not concern themselves with any claims other than those remaining for trial.
(b) Motion in Limine No. 2 to exclude “damages evidence” regarding “abuse of process claim” is DENIED. Wright's damages relating to its abuse of process claim are, however, limited to the aggregate amount reflected in the billing statements marked as Exhibit 317, Ex. 9 to Whitaker Decl. (docket no. 279-4).
(c) Motion in Limine No. 3 and Motion in Limine No. 4 to limit “damages evidence on defendants' tortious interference claim” are GRANTED as follows: Wright's damages associated with its tortious interference claim shall be limited to the figures and calculations included in Drew Voth's Report, any written responses to discovery requests, and/or any deposition testimony on the subject.
(d) Motion in Limine No. 5 to exclude “evidence or statements regarding falsity of patent infringement” is DENIED.
(e) Motion in Limine No. 6 to exclude “evidence, argument, and suggestions concerning court rules, statutes, regulations, or law” is DENIED as overbroad. The Court will instruct the jury about the law applicable to the claims in this matter.
(f) Motion in Limine No. 7 to exclude “defendants' introduction of their own pleadings and briefs as substantive evidence” is GRANTED as to all parties, none of which may proffer as evidence a pleading or ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.