Court Opinion

ID: 3327363
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-05 17:43:47.183806+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:55.644078
License: Public Domain

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]ORDERS RE OBJECTIONS TO REQUESTS TO REVISE (#106)
Plaintiff's objections to the following
    Overruled — 1, 10, 11, 13, 16, 18, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 44, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72 and 74.
The following objections are sustained:
    3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15, 17, 19, 21, 24, 27, 33, 34, 35, 42, 43, 45, 50, 52, 53, 59, 61, 65, 69, 73, 75, 76, 77 and 78.
Objections 12, 14, 28 and 48 are sustained. Whether a variation of the Noerr-Pennington doctrine is here implicated is not now before the court. See United Mine Works v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657,670 (1965); Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. NoerrMotor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127, 136 (1961).
The court has not undertaken to rule on any substantive claims advanced in connection with the objections to the requests to revise.
LEVIN, JUDGE