Free Order on Motion for Order - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut


File Size: 33.6 kB
Pages: 2
Date: December 29, 2004
File Format: PDF
State: Connecticut
Category: District Court of Connecticut
Author: unknown
Word Count: 312 Words, 2,003 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ctd/15713/167.pdf

Download Order on Motion for Order - District Court of Connecticut ( 33.6 kB)


Preview Order on Motion for Order - District Court of Connecticut
Case 3:01-cv-02104-SRU

Document 167

Filed 12/29/2004

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT OMEGA, S.A., Plaintiff, v. OMEGA ENGINEERING, INC., et al. Defendants. : : : : : : : : :

NO.

3:01CV2104 (MRK)

OMEGA ENGINEERING, INC., Counterclaim-Plaintiff, v. OMEGA, S.A. and THE SWATCH GROUP LTD., Counterclaim-Defendants.

: : : : : : : : : :

ORDER On August 19, 2004 [doc. #98], this Court denied without prejudice Omega Engineering Inc.'s ("OEI") Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [doc. #69], in the expectation that all the arguments presented therein and in OEI's associated briefings to the Court would be incorporated into OEI's currently pending Motion for Summary Judgment [doc. #101]. OEI's still pending Motion for Preclusion of Evidence [doc. #80] was part of its reply brief to the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [doc. #69], and as such, the Court fully expected that the arguments in the Motion for Preclusion of Evidence [doc. #80] would be incorporated into its currently pending motion for summary judgment. This has, in fact, occurred. OEI's request for an order precluding evidence of foreign trademark filings is explicitly a part of OEI's motion for summary

Case 3:01-cv-02104-SRU

Document 167

Filed 12/29/2004

Page 2 of 2

judgment, which expressly incorporates by reference the arguments and evidentiary submissions previously made in support of the Motion for Preclusion of Evidence. See Def.'s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. [doc. #121], at 37. Because OEI's Motion for Preclusion of Evidence [doc. #80] is duplicative of its later-filed motion for summary judgment, the Court DENIES OEI's Motion for Preclusion of Evidence [doc. #80] with the expectation that the Court will address the merits of all of OEI's preclusion arguments in connection with its consideration of OEI's motion for summary judgment. IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/

Mark R. Kravitz United States District Judge

Dated at New Haven, Connecticut: December 29, 2004.