alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1























































CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING WAYMO’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff,

vs.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; 

OTTOMOTTO LLC; OTTO TRUCKING 

LLC,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF WAYMO LLC’S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF WAYMO’S 

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FOR 

HEARING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR PROVISIONAL RELIEF

 Plaintiff Waymo LLC (“Waymo”) has filed an Administrative Motion to File Under Seal 

Portions of Waymo’s Responses To Questions For Hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion For Provisional 

Relief (the “Administrative Motion”). 

 Having considered the Administrative Motion, and good cause to seal having been shown, 

the Court GRANTS Waymo’s Administrative Motion and ORDERS sealed the documents listed 

below: 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 406 Filed 05/09/17 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-2- CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING WAYMO’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: ______________, 2017

HON. WILLIAM ALSUP

United States District Court Judge

May 9

Document Portions to Be Filed Under Seal

Portions of Waymo’s Responses To Questions 

For Hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion For 

Provisional Relief 

Highlighted Portions

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 406 Filed 05/09/17 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11


                               GALILEO CORPORATION
                        CALCULATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         Three Months Ended                 Nine Months Ended 
                                                               June 30,                           June 30,
                                                       1997              1996             1997              1996
                                                    -----------       -----------      -----------       -----------

<S>                                                   <C>               <C>              <C>               <C>      
Primary
  Average shares outstanding                          6,854,668         6,806,159        6,846,147         6,787,587


  Net effect of dilutive stock
    options - based on the treasury
    stock method using average market price                  --           196,611               --           146,290
                                                    -----------       -----------      -----------       -----------

Total                                                 6,854,668         7,002,770        6,846,147         6,933,877
                                                    ===========       ===========      ===========       ===========

Net income (loss)                                    (1,513,000)        1,759,000      (10,057,000)        4,110,000

Per share amount                                          (0.22)             0.25            (1.47)             0.59



Fully Diluted
  Average shares outstanding                          6,854,668         6,806,159        6,846,147         6,787,587


  Net effect of dilutive stock options - based
  on the treasury stock method using the
  quarter-end market price, if higher than
  average market price                                       --           199,622               --           147,290
                                                    -----------       -----------      -----------       -----------
Total                                                 6,854,668         7,005,781        6,846,147         6,934,877
                                                    ===========       ===========      ===========       ===========

Net income (loss)                                    (1,513,000)        1,759,000      (10,057,000)        4,110,000


Per share amount                                          (0.22)             0.25            (1.47)             0.59

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

UNVERFERTH MFG. CO., INC., )

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

 v. ) CAUSE NO. 3:13-cv-00097-TLS-CA N

)

PAR-KAN CO. )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

OPINION AND ORDER

Pending and ripe before the Court are two motions. First, Plaintiff, Unverferth

Manufacturing Company, Inc. (“Unverferth”), filed its Motion for Sanctions on January 14,

2014. Defendant, Par-Kan Company (“Par-Kan”), filed its response in opposition on January 28,

2014. The motion was ripe on February 7, 2014, when Unverferth filed its reply. Second, the

parties filed a Joint Motion for Entry of Protective Order on April 24, 2014. The Court

discussed both motions with the parties at a motion hearing on May 5, 2014. 

I. Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions, Doc. No. 46

On May 15, 2014, the undersigned received a letter from Unverferth’s counsel indicating

that the parties reached agreement on all issues related to Unverferth’s motion for sanctions and

that the motion is consequently moot. Therefore, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Unverferth’s

motion for sanctions. [Doc. No. 46]. 
II. The Parties’ Joint Motion for Protective Order, Doc. No. 56

In their motion, the parties presented two almost identical versions of a proposed

protective order to the Court. They agreed as to the vast majority of the provisions, but sought

the Court’s assistance in resolving their minor dispute as to which party should have the burden

to file a motion in the event the party receiving discovery designated as confidential wished to

challenge the designation. As announced from the bench, the parties’ proposed protective orders

are defective regardless of the filing burden dispute because neither one included language

explicitly allowing any party and any interested member of the public to challenge the sealing of

particular documents, as required by the Seventh Circuit. See Citizens First Nat’l Bank of

Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 946 (7th Cir. 1999). As such, the Court DENIES

the parties’ motion WITHOUT PREJUDICE. [Doc. No. 56].

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Unverferth’s motion for

sanctions [Doc. No. 46]. Tthe Court DIRECTS the Clerk to file the attached letter. In addition,

the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the parties’ motion for protective order [Doc.

No. 56]. The parties may resubmit a motion for protective order with a proposed protective

order that comports with the standards set forth in Citizens First Nat’l Bank of Princeton v.

Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 946 (7th Cir. 1999). 

SO ORDERED 

Dated this 16th Day of May, 2014.

 s/Christopher A. Nuechterlein 

Christopher A. Nuechterlein

United States Magistrate Judge

2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

ELMER L. MOORE, )

)

Petitioner, )

) 

v. ) No. 3:13 CV 116

)

INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION and ORDER

Elmer L. Moore, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition attempting to

obtain his immediate release from parole. He argues that it was wrong for him to have

been arrested for a parole violation because he believes that he has completed his

criminal sentence. However, before a federal court can consider a habeas corpus

petition from a person in state custody, the petitioner must have previously presented

the claim(s) therein to the state courts. “This means that the petitioner must raise the

issue at each and every level in the state court system, including levels at which review

is discretionary rather than mandatory.” Lewis v. Sternes, 390 F.3d 1019, 1025-1026 (7th

Cir. 2004). 

There are two possible methods for challenging a parole revocation in Indiana:

by filing a post-conviction relief petition, Receveur v. Buss, 919 N.E.2d 1235 (Ind. Ct.

App. 2010), or by filing a state habeas corpus petition if the inmate is seeking immediate

release. Lawson v. State, 845 N.E.2d 185, 186 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). Furthermore, if a state

habeas corpus petition is improperly filed, it will be converted to a post-conviction
petition. Hardley v. State, 893 N.E.2d 740, 743 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008); Ward v. Ind. Parole Bd.,

805 N.E.2d 893 (2004). 

Here, Moore has not filed either of those petitions in state court. Indeed, it does

not even appear that he has yet presented his arguments to the parole board during his

parole revocation hearing. Therefore he has not exhausted his state court remedies.

For the foregoing reasons, this federal habeas corpus petition is DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4. 

SO ORDERED.

Date: March 5, 2013

s/James T. Moody 

JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
%SJNeS"WcepWt}NA`tV

AcLNA`tVouWt}

ǽĠŗŗěŗŗñaĚĭ

ĉŇÎêĤòŃÍďÙĝÅłĜòĸÍéņÙĝĎĥďġŇ

ÆĥòğÆĝŅûÍďÙĝ§ŇĽ©ÙĢłĜòëù¿ĝ

ŅŎÈõĝğíĥĝęřÄĤĢĹņñņéĝ§ŇĽ©Ùġĝ

ļĤņĝĽÙĦŚęļĥ© ļĹæŇÎĝĹÚËġĢļ

ĹŇòÍĝğÆĊĢÍĢļłĜòĥ ŃÍďÙĝĹŇļÅ

ǍĎ ßÃĝĹņ¿áĝ

Ĺ¿áĝļÆĝļÈõĝĸËÅ©ďĢ

Ĺņ¿áĝĸļÙġĝļ§ņěċŚ

ǻ§ĢĽěñġĝĤĢÆŇÑĢłĜòęĽá¿ěĝ

ðċĽġĝĸËŇÑ Ġċ

www.fda.gov/healthequity

healthequity@fda.hhs.gov

1-888-INFO-FDA

(1-888-463-6332)

@FDAHealthEquity









ĹĐËÝġĝļÆĝļÈõĝĸËÅð·Ýa

ǍĹŇÎŇÎÙĝË·©ĝŅûĹòĽĥ©ġĝ

ÆċĹŇÎŇÎÙĝĹ Î·©ĝģÆĊ©ña ̈ĥĐÇ

ğÆĊĢłĞ¬Æ¿©úǻĎĝĹÚĥĢģĽďa

ǍĎ ßÃĝĹņ¿áĝĹŇòÍĝ

Ë·©ĝĤò­¿ĝåŇĎĥďġŇ ʐ

ðċĽġĝłĜòĎ©ĊéĥĢŅûĹŇÎŇÎÙĝ

{{{ǍJ`WcWJA`tpWA`qǍUezŅħļÍ©ďĝŜ

ŃÍďÙĝÆ ģĽ áġĝ

2èġĥĝĤĢ
ǽ2èġĥĝĤĢŃÍďÙĝÅĢ

Ľĭ2èġĥĝĤĢŃÍďÙĝÅ

¶©ĥŇŘĢÆĥòĠ·ĥŇãÍĢ

ļĤņĝĽÙĦŚĎġÙ ̧

ǍÆņ ̧ĚďÝ īĢÆÃ©ÙŇ

ǻĤņĝĽÙĦŚÆòÙŇ

ģĽĢÍĭĽĭļ

ǻ×ŇÎďĥĝĪÏÍùŇ

ŃÈĝǟÍďÙĝǠÏĽĐĽěõĝ

ń©ĝĹġñêŚĤĢŅ«Ň

ŇřÃĝłĞęĽâĽĝŅûĬĝļĥ©a

ǻĹċéĝ ĎġÙ ̧ÆŇļÐ©ĝğÆÃ©Ùņĝ

ńĥñŇĢĽĭļǠğÆĝŅûÏĽĐĽěõĝŁĊŇǻĤņĝĽÙĦŚņöŅûļ

ǻĠÙ·ĝŇřÄłĞĚáŇŘļǟğÆĝŅûÍďÙĝĹÙĦïùaË

èåĥġĝÍņöŃÍďÙĝÅŃÅL·ŇģĤďġŇǻ ̈ċĽĝËļÍġ ļ

ãÍĢļěĊĝãÍĢĚ®Ģl·ÍÄĸÍņéÄĹņ¿âĚĐÝĢłĞ

ǍÍáĝģÆĊúļłĜďĝ

ĤĢŃÍďÙĝÅĤĢμřñĝŃÍ·ŇøņĐ

ǽ2èġĥĝ

ŅûÍďÙĝĹÙĦłĜòëù¿ĝĽĭŃÍďÙĝÅμřòĤĢ÷ÆĬĝ

Ĺņ¿áĝĹŇòÍĝğÆĊĢÅÆ¿ņÚǍĹņñņéĝ§ŇĽ©ÙġĝÆĥòğÆĝ

·ŇŃÈĝl·Ľ©ÙġĝļğÆĝŅûÍďÙěĝ÷ÆĬ©Ùġĝl·Ľ©Ùġĝ

ĹÙĦà¿ú§ÍĢÅÆòļģďĢŜËÆċīņěòëù¿ĝęļ¿aģ

×ņċÏĬ ̧ǠğÆĝŅûÍďÙĝ×ņċÏĬ ̧ğÆÃ©Ú ğÆĝŅûÍďÙĝ

.(CGMǠÏĽĐĽěõěĝĸÍġ©ÙġĝĹċÍġĝÏĬ ̧ļǟÏĽĐĽěõĝ

ÍďÙĝ×ņċÏĬ ̧ĎĥĢěé©Ň

ÈÄaǻğÅĸÍéċðæļğÆĝŅ ʔ û

ÏĬ ̧ŅûǻĎñâ÷ÍêĤĢĸÅò

Ë©ÄèŇÎÞłĜò×ņĊĝ

ęĽá¿ěĝīĥĢàěÃ©ĝĤďġŇ

ÏĬ ̧ğÆÃ©ÙŇǍĸÍĊĝłĜò

ÏĽĐĽěõěĝĸÍġ©ÙġĝĹċÍġĝ

īĝÄÅĠ©ŇÏĽĐĽěõěĝÍñÝ©ÙĢ ʐ

§ŇĽ©ÙĢ×ņĊĝÆě·ĝ ̈¿a

ǍĉōċÅðå ĚĐÍďÙĝ

 2èġĥĝĤĢŃÍďÙĝÆ Ĥņ áġĝßÃÞŚäñĝĤďġŇ

ĸÅŇÒļĹņ¿âÈö§ËņÄÇÃaĉŇÎêĤòĠĬæÍĢłĜòĸÍéņÙĝ

ǍŅħÆĝçÝĥĝ

Ĺņ¿áĝĹġñêŚęļĥaÆñŇǍĹņ¿âÈö§ËņÄÈÃa

Ġď¿©ĝŅûʐņÙņōËʐřĢòĹÚĥġĝ§ċļŚŅûĹÚĥĢ§ņġď 

ļĹŇÈõ©ĝńâá©ÄÆÀÍÝ©ÚǍğÆĝŅûÍďÙĝĹÙĦŅû

ĹņōÈöĹéÄðæļĚ ̧ĤĢŃÍďÙĝÆ ĹņòĽ©ĝÍÄÆÀ

ǍĹņ¿â

ÆòÙŇçÝĥĝ Ďņě¿aģÍĐĚďÝ ŅħÆĝçÝĥĝ×ËĢ

ĚďÝ Ġď¿©ĝļęñúĚďÝ ĤņĝĽÙĦŚğÆÃ©ÚŅûĎġÙ ̧

äùÃŇīĦġĐğÆĝŅûÍďÙĝ§ŇĽ©ÙĢŅûĚåú

ǍáòŚøěaļěĊĝãÍĢ Ĺ âŜÍéÄ

•

•

A1Cl·Ľ©ÙĢ àņÃÝ©ĝ

%5.7ĤĢĚċ ŃÅò

%6.4łĞ%5.7 ŃÍďÙĝÆĝ§ĢÆĊĢ

Í®Đú%6.5 ŃÍďÙĝÅ

Ĥņ ĽěöĽġņĬĝË©Ä§ŇĽ©ÙĢ

A1CŃÍďÙĝ

èÚĽ©ĢA1CŃÍďÙĝĤņ ĽěöĽġņĬĝË©ÄØņĊŇ

ǍĹņæġĝĹ ̄ř®ĝÍĬÞŚęřÄğÆĝŅûÍďÙĝ§ŇĽ©ÙĢ

ģĽďaǻŃÍďÙĝÆ Ĥņ áġĝßÃÞŚĠíñġĝĹÙĥĝ 

Íñaġĥņ Ĺņĝ®ĢĹ·ņ©ĦĚċļȲ7ĹÙĥ Ë©ÄŘĹ·ņ©Ħ

ŃÍďÙĝĤņ ĽěöĽġņĬĝË©ÄŅûĹñùaÍġĝ§ŇĽ©Ùġĝ

ǍŃÍďÙĝÅ§ùòåġ Ĺ âŜÍéÃĝĎæÍñaĤòA1C

 A1CŃÍďÙĝĤņ ĽěöĽġņĬĝË©Ä§ŇĽ©ÙĢĤĢĉĊ¿a

ĚċŚłĜòĹĥÙĝŅûĤņaÍĢË©ÄŘÍ ̧ĉŇÎêĤòĎŇÆĝ

ŃÈĝļÆĝ§ÍņöÇËÍďaÍ®Đ ĚďÝ Ë©ÄŘÍ ̧ļ ʐ

Ǎl·ÍÄĹņ¿â§ŘÀĤĢŅħña ̈ĥĐÇļīĝļĥ©a

łĞ2èġĥĝĤĢŃÍďÙĝÆ Ĥņ áġĝĤĢÆŇÆñĝμ©¿ŇÆċ

ĤņĝĽÙĦŚļĽ¿ĝĹŇļÅŚĪÈĭĚġÝaÆċǍŃÍďÙĝĹŇļÅęļĥa

ǍĤĊ¿ĝĉŇÎêĤòŁéñań©ĝl·ÍÄŚĹŇļÅŚļ

§ÀÍ ̧ģúǻĎĦÏļèåĝĸņ¿ĝèġĦŅû§Íņņõ©ĝøďaĠĝÇ

ßĊĦłĜòčÆòÙaģĤďġŇń©ĝ§ËņÃĝl·ÆÀńĭĹĥġÙĝ

ǍğÆĝŅûÍďÙĝ§ŇĽ©ÙĢŅûĠď¿©ĝļģÏĽĝ

ĎŇÆĝğÆĝÍďÚŅûĠď¿©ĝ

ń¿áĝĚĐŚ

ŅħÆĝçÝĥĝĹÚËġĢ

ğÆĝèõæèæ

ĤņÄÆ©ĝğÆò

•

•

•

•

•

łĜďĝĹ¿âļŃÍďÙĝÅ

Ĺ âŜÍéÄĸÅŇÒŅûŃÍďÙĝÆ Ĺ âŜĠĭÙa

Ĺ¿âłĜòìúÀǍǟĹņěďĝęř©òǠłĜďĝãÍĢ 

džŅĜŇĢïaĉŇÎêĤòĎņ©ņěĐ
##### 



Exhibit 10.8
 Dionex Corporation  2004 Equity Incentive Plan
 International Stock Option Agreement  (Nonstatutory Stock Option)
 Grant Notice Company Plan
  1. Vesting.
 2. Number of Shares and Exercise Price.
 3. Method of Payment. The Wall Street Journal permitted by your Grant Notice,
 (a) The Wall Street Journal
 (b) The Wall Street Journal
 4. Whole Shares.
 5. Securities Law Compliance.




---



##### 



6. Term.
 (a) Securities Law Compliance
 (b)
 (c)
 (d)
 (e)
 7. Exercise.
 (a)
 (b)
 8. Transferability. inter vivos
 9. Option Not a Service Contract.




---



##### 



10. Withholding Obligations.
 (a)
 (b)
 (c)
 11. Personal Data Personal Data Sensitive Personal Data
 12. Additional Acknowledgements.
 (a)
 (b)
 (c)
 (d)
 (e)
 (f)




---



##### 



(g)
 (h)
 (i)
 (j)
 13. Notices.
 14. Governing Plan Document.
1 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING NON-PARTY ANTHONY LEVANDOWSKI’S MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF 

COURT’S ORDER DATED MARCH 16, 2017 (DKT. #61) 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

WAYMO LLC, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No.: 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

NON-PARTY ANTHONY 

LEVANDOWSKI’S MOTION FOR 

MODIFICATION OF COURT’S 

ORDER DATED MARCH 16, 2017 

(DKT. #61) 

Trial Date: October 2, 2017 

 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 147-2 Filed 04/04/17 Page 1 of 3
2 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING NON-PARTY ANTHONY LEVANDOWSKI’S MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF 

COURT’S ORDER DATED MARCH 16, 2017 (DKT. #61) 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Upon consideration of Non-Party Anthony Levandowski’s Motion for Modification of 

Court’s Order dated March 16, 2017 (Dkt. #61), this Court hereby GRANTS Non-Party Anthony 

Levandowski’s for Modification of Court’s Order and ORDERS that order to be modified to 

prohibit Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) from disclosing any information provided 

by Mr. Levandowski in the course of the Joint Defense and Common Interest Agreement entered 

into by Mr. Levandowski and Uber, and specifically prohibiting the disclosure of information 

concerning the due diligence review conducted by a third party under that agreement, including 

but not limited to the identity of the third party who conducted any such due diligence review, 

whether Mr. Levandowski possessed any documents that were reviewed by the third party, and 

the identity of any of Mr. Levandowski’s possessions that may have been reviewed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ______________, 2017 _____________________________ 

HONORABLE WILLIAM ALSUP 

United States District Court Judge 

 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 147-2 Filed 04/04/17 Page 2 of 3
i 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING NON-PARTY ANTHONY LEVANDOWSKI’S MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF 

COURT’S ORDER DATED MARCH 16, 2017 (DKT. #61) 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 147-2 Filed 04/04/17 Page 3 of 3
Keith V. HARNED, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9004.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL

on

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: BIOMET M2A MAGNUM HIP IMPLANT

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2391

(SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE)

CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER (CTO −24)

On October 2, 2012, the Panel transferred 8 civil action(s) to the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Indiana for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §1407. See _F.Supp.2d_ (J.P.M.L. 2012). Since that time, 142 additional action(s) have been

transferred to the Northern District of Indiana. With the consent of that court, all such actions have

been assigned to the Honorable Robert L Miller, Jr.

It appears that the action(s) on this conditional transfer order involve questions of fact that are

common to the actions previously transferred to the Northern District of Indiana and assigned to

Judge Miller.

Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict

Litigation, the action(s) on the attached schedule are transferred under 28 U.S.C. §1407 to the

Northern District of Indiana for the reasons stated in the order of October 2, 2012, and, with the

consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Robert L Miller, Jr.

This order does not become effective until it is filed in the Office of the Clerk of the United States

District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. The transmittal of this order to said Clerk shall be

stayed 7 days from the entry thereof. If any party files a notice of opposition with the Clerk of the

Panel within this 7−day period, the stay will be continued until further order of the Panel.

FOR THE PANEL:

 Jeffery N. Lüthi

Clerk of the Panel

Case NV/2:13-cv-00213 Document 4 Filed 02/27/13 Page 1 of 2

Feb 27, 2013
IN RE: BIOMET M2A MAGNUM HIP IMPLANT

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2391

SCHEDULE CTO−24 − TAG−ALONG ACTIONS

DIST DIV. C.A.NO. CASE CAPTION

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN

CAN 3 13−00534 Haywood et al v. Biomet, Inc. et al

FLORIDA MIDDLE

FLM 2 13−00098 Milo v. Biomet, Inc. et al

FLM 2 13−00103 Cavanaugh v. Biomet, Inc. et al

GEORGIA SOUTHERN

GAS 2 12−00206 Bignault et al v. Biomet, Inc. et al

ILLINOIS NORTHERN

ILN 1 13−00983 Bermes v. Biomet, Inc et al

NEVADA

NV 2 13−00212 Gardberg v. Biomet, Inc. et al

NV 2 13−00213 Krom v. Biomet, Inc. et al

PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN

PAE 5 13−00714 PARSONS v. BIOMET, INC. et al

TEXAS SOUTHERN

TXS 4 13−00322 Tucker v. Biomet, Inc. et al

WEST VIRGINIA NORTHERN

WVN 1 12−00178 Dunson v. Biomet, Inc. et al

WEST VIRGINIA SOUTHERN

WVS 6 13−02217 West, et al v. Biomet, Inc., et al

Case NV/2:13-cv-00213 Document 4 Filed 02/27/13 Page 2 of 2
Anthony B. WILSON, petitioner, v. Michael D. CREWS, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

No. 12-8500.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 17-00939 WHA

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT

CONFERENCE ON MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

A case management conference is hereby set for MARCH 16 AT 11:30 A.M. to discuss

discovery and procedure for plaintiff Waymo LLC’s pending motion for a preliminary

injunction. One matter that will be discussed is expedited discovery going both ways. Counsel

for both sides shall please attend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 13, 2017. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 43 Filed 03/13/17 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

AMBER RAEDER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING 

PHARMACY INC. aka NEW ENGLAND 

COMPOUNDING CENTER, et al. 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 3:12-cv-00843-PPS-CAN

JUDGE PHILIP P. SIMON 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

Please take notice that Knight S. Anderson of Tucker Ellis LLP hereby enters her 

appearance for Defendant Ameridose, LLC. Please note on the Docket and direct all future 

communications, pleadings, and court notices to the undersigned counsel. 

Dated this 21st day of February, 2013 

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Knight S. Anderson 

Knight S. Anderson (17216-53) 

Tucker Ellis LLP 

925 Euclid Avenue, Suite 1150 

Cleveland, OH 44115-1414 

Tel: 216.592.5000 

Fax: 216.592.5009 

E-mail: knight.anderson@tuckerellis.com 

Attorney for Defendant Ameridose LLC

case 3:12-cv-00843-PPS-CAN document 20 filed 02/21/13 page 1 of 2
2 

013260.000010/1592913.1 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of the Court 

on February 21, 2013 using the ECF system that sent notification of this filing to all ECFregistered counsel of record via e-mail generated by the Court’s ECF system. 

 /s/Knight S. Anderson 

Attorney for Defendant Ameridose, LLC 

case 3:12-cv-00843-PPS-CAN document 20 filed 02/21/13 page 2 of 2
CHONGQING ZONGSHEN GROUP IMPORT/EXPORT CORPORATION, et al., petitioners, v. RUBICON GLOBAL VENTURES, INC., et al.

No. 12-1006.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
#### Barry HAVENER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bashir AMEJI, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 03-6090.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

April 28, 2004.

Barry Havener, West Liberty, KY, pro se.

Amy V. Barker, Office of General Counsel, Department of Corrections, Frankfort, KY, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: COLE and COOK, Circuit Judges; and SPIEGEL, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable S. Arthur Spiegel, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

*ORDER*

Barry Havener, a Kentucky prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment against him. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(l), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

*372Seeking monetary and injunctive relief. Havener sued Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex (“EKCC”) physician Dr. Bashir Ameji: Kentucky Department of Corrections Commissioner (“KDOC”) Vertner Taylor: and KDOC Medical Director Dr. Richard Kimbler, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Havener claimed that the defendants denied him necessary medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. This timely appeal followed.

We review de novo a grant of summary judgment. *Terry Barr Sales Agency, Inc. v. All-Lock Co., Inc.,*96 F.3d 174, 178 (6th Cir.1996). Upon review, we conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for the defendants. A gleaning of the record reveals no evidence of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. *See Estelle v. Gamble,*429 U.S. 97, 100, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). Because the magistrate judge and the district court articulated the reasons for dismissing Havener’s suit, a detailed per curiam opinion would be duplicative and serve no useful purpose.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge and adopted by the district court. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
CERDANT, INC., et al., petitioner, v. DHL EXPRESS (USA), INC.

No. 12-747.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.