Free Order on Motion for Reconsideration - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 44.1 kB
Pages: 2
Date: October 28, 2005
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 326 Words, 2,079 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/8723/125.pdf

Download Order on Motion for Reconsideration - District Court of Delaware ( 44.1 kB)


Preview Order on Motion for Reconsideration - District Court of Delaware
Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF Doellment 125 Filed 10/28/2005 Page 1 012
H
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC., a :
Delaware corporation, :
Plaintiff, ;
v. ; C.A. No. 04-1371-JJF
FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR i
INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware :
corporation, and FAIRCHILD :
SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, a :
Delaware corporation, :
Defendants. Z
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Presently before the Court is a Motion For Clarification Or,
In The Alternative, Reconsideration Of The Court’s August 9, 2005
Order (D.I. 87) filed by Plaintiff, Power Integrations, Inc. In
response to Plaintiff's Motion, Defendants, Fairchild 1
Semiconductor International, Inc. and Fairchild Semiconductor
Corporation, argue that the Court's August 9 Order unambiguously E
resolves the issue of Plaintiff’s entitlement to damages prior to i
the filing of its Complaint. §
In resolving the discovery dispute presented to the Court in
Plaintiff's Motion To Compel (D.I. 29), the Court relied on the §
factual record from the parties' discovery responses, i
specifically Plaintiff’s response to Interrogatory No. 18. With l
the facts the Plaintiff and Defendants presented, the Court
decided the discovery dispute. In its present motion, Plaintiff i
advises that intends to, at some point, produce additional facts %

Case1:O4-cv—O1371—JJF D0cument125 Fi|ed10/28/2005 Page20f2
not yet provided to Defendants or the Court, and therefore, asks
the Court to clarify that its August 9, 2005 Order is based only
on the facts Plaintiff had revealed as of the August 9 decision.
Such an understanding of the Court’s August 9 Order is correct.
Thus, the Court concludes that the motion to clarify or
reconsider should be denied.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion
For Clarification Or, In The Alternative, Reconsideration Of The
Court’s August 9, 2005 Order (D.I. 87) is DENIED.
October 28, 2005
DATE ,,, IT STA s DISTRICT co T
Q;
Q
il
Q.
I; I
11
}
I
rz
* 1
ii J
Q:

i il
l
n.
L i
1 U
l
“ 2