1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. LUMENATE TECHNOLOGIES, LP v. BAKER
 

LUMENATE TECHNOLOGIES, LP v. BAKER

Case No. 1:14-cv-125.

LUMENATE TECHNOLOGIES, LP, Plaintiff, v. DANIEL BAKER, et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division.

July 19, 2016.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Data Processing Sciences Corporation, Objector, represented by John Byron Pinney , Graydon Head & Ritchey.

Lumenate Technologies, LP, Plaintiff, represented by David H. Wallace , Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP, E. Chase Dressman , Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP & Russell S. Sayre , Taft Stettinius & Hollister.

Daniel Baker, Defendant, represented by Eric Kendall Combs , Dinsmore & Shohl, Mark Alan VanderLaan , Dinsmore & Shohl, Steven Richard Wolterman , Wolterman Law Office LPA, Janice Lynn Hatcher , Dinsmore & Shohl & Mark G. Arnzen, Jr. .

Christopher Anderson, Defendant, represented by Eric Kendall Combs , Dinsmore & Shohl, Mark Alan VanderLaan , Dinsmore & Shohl, Steven Richard Wolterman , Wolterman Law Office LPA, Janice Lynn Hatcher , Dinsmore & Shohl & Mark G. Arnzen, Jr. .

William Hahn, Defendant, represented by Eric Kendall Combs , Dinsmore & Shohl, Mark Alan VanderLaan , Dinsmore & Shohl, Steven Richard Wolterman , Wolterman Law Office LPA, Janice Lynn Hatcher , Dinsmore & Shohl & Mark G. Arnzen, Jr. .

RDI Marketing Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eric Kendall Combs , Dinsmore & Shohl, Mark Alan VanderLaan , Dinsmore & Shohl, Janice Lynn Hatcher , Dinsmore & Shohl, Mark G. Arnzen, Jr. & Steven Richard Wolterman , Wolterman Law Office LPA.

Bronson Trebbi, Defendant, represented by Eric Kendall Combs , Dinsmore & Shohl, Mark G. Arnzen, Jr. & Steven Richard Wolterman , Wolterman Law Office LPA.

Unknown John Doe(s), Defendant, represented by Mark G. Arnzen, Jr. .

Kevin Singleton, Movant, Pro Se.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE (Doc. 161)

This civil action is before the court on Plaintiff's motion in limine (Doc. 161) and the parties' responsive memoranda (Docs. 164, 180).

I. BACKGROUND

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 104, 401...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases