Source: https://mcsmith.blogs.com/eastern_district_of_texas/2011/06/page/2/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 10:28:14+00:00

Document:
I posted last fall that at the November 23, 2010 scheduling conference for the first batch of false marking cases in Marshall a number of cases were set for trial beginning in June - specifically for jury selection last Monday. None made it that far, and I thought it might be interesting to see what happened to them.
Judge Ward had six cases at that hearing - he transferred one at the hearing and set three more for jury selection in June of 2011, with one each in August and September. The other five are now gone as well - two due to transfer and three due to settlement.
Promote v. Ortho-McNeil, 2:10cv109 - transferred at hearing.
Promote v. Eisai, 2:10cv119 - set for jury selection 6/6/11. Dismissed due to settlement – 2/28/11.
Promote v. Bristol Myers, 2:10cv120/245 - set for jury selection 6/6/11. ‘120 case subsequently transferred to New Jersey. ‘245 case dismissed.
Judge Everingham had nine (counting ones later transferred to him). He transferred one at the hearing as well, and gave the others trial setings from July through September. Of the other eight, one was transferred, five settled, and two appear to have been dismissed by the plaintiff voluntarily, which is not an uncommon occurrence locally following In re BP Lubricants.
Promote v. Little Kids, 2:10cv135 - motion to transfer to RI granted at hearing – order signed 2/23/11.
Promote v. Medtronic, 2:10cv233 - set for jury selection 7/5/11 – case stayed pending settlement – 6/8/11.
Promote v. Zodiac, 2:10cv234 - set for jury selection 7/5/11 - – Mtn for entry of final judgment due to settlement filed 3/3/11 – no final order signed yet.
Texas Data v. Target, 2:10cv269 - jury selection 8/1/11. Motion to transfer later denied (the only Marshall false marking case in which a motion to transfer was denied) – order signed granting D’s motion to dismiss P’s complaint on 4/6/11. P given until 6/5/11 to amend complaint. No amended complaint filed, so I am assuming a voluntary dismissal.
Promote v. Hampton, 2:10cv327 - jury selection 7/5/11. Case dismissed on 1/20/11 due to settlement.
Promote v. WD40, 2:10cv406 - jury selection 7/5/11. Stipulation of dismissal w/o prejudice filed 6/6/11 – no indication of settlement.
We're celebrating Flag Day with a new flag on our flagpole over on the visiting lawyer side of the Hub - which this month is housing one of the trial teams that picked a jury in Judge Ward's court this morning. My three scouts (one Second Class and two Wolfs) climbed out on the roof and took down the old one (faded just from December, which surprised me), replaced it with a new one, and carried the old to Grayson's troop meeting tonight, where it can wait for the next flag retirement ceremony. (You can't see it in the picture, but we have bunting up in the windows from Memorial Day through the Fourth as well).
Incidentally, if you have a flag pole in Marshall that doesn't have a flag, you might get a visit from the "naked flag pole patrol" this week. These civic-minded individuals are putting pink ribbons on any flagpoles in town that don't have a flag displayed to help promote getting more flags up for the Fourth this year. I'm looking forward to seeing what kind of a difference it makes. As I have posted previously on my personal weblog, it used to be a lot more common for buildings in the downtown area to have flagpoles - hopefully more will have flags back up this year.
Defendants sought a transfer of venue from Tyler to California. Judge Schneider denied the motion because the defendants failed to establish that the action could have been brought in the transferee forum, and because the defendant failed to show that the transferee forum was clearly more convenient. The latter finding was because "discovery has shown that all Defendants possess relevant evidence and witnesses. This district is relatively more convenient for accessing much of that evidence, and trial in this district will be more convenient for many of the witnesses." The moving defendant had argued that the relevant evidence was centered on it.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.