Case 1:17-cv-00309-CMH-TCB Document 99 Filed 09/13
Post# of 82672
(Total Views: 402)
Posted On: 09/15/2017 11:38:26 AM
Case 1:17-cv-00309-CMH-TCB Document 99 Filed 09/13/17 Page 1 of 24 PageID# 2356
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
STRIKEFORCE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ENTRUST, INC., ENTRUST DATACARD
CORPORATION, and CYGNACOM
SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Defendants.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-00309-CMH-TCB
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
Blank areas in the following red print were blacked out......
In the briefing ordered by this Court, StrikeForce has already discussed in depth the factors
set forth in Flame, demonstrating that Entrust, Inc., EDC, and EDL are so closely intertwined that
Entrust, Inc. and EDC can properly be ordered to produce information from EDL. Dkt. No. 82.
Additional information uncovered since the parties’ Flame briefing only reinforces this
conclusion. For example, Mr. Wetmore testified that,
Further, EDL apparently
has the ability
. Additionally, during development of the Accused
Products,
Moreover, Entrust, Inc. and EDL also have
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, StrikeForce respectfully requests that Entrust’s motion for
protective order be denied.
12 StrikeForce was intending on filing a cross-motion to compel concerning the 30(b)(6)
depositions. Counsel for Entrust and StrikeForce conferred and agreed that StrikeForce’s crossmotion
would be unnecessary in view of Entrust’s motion. In view of this, StrikeForce believes
that is appropriate in this Response to request that the Court issue an order compelling the second
deposition.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
STRIKEFORCE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ENTRUST, INC., ENTRUST DATACARD
CORPORATION, and CYGNACOM
SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Defendants.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-00309-CMH-TCB
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
Blank areas in the following red print were blacked out......
In the briefing ordered by this Court, StrikeForce has already discussed in depth the factors
set forth in Flame, demonstrating that Entrust, Inc., EDC, and EDL are so closely intertwined that
Entrust, Inc. and EDC can properly be ordered to produce information from EDL. Dkt. No. 82.
Additional information uncovered since the parties’ Flame briefing only reinforces this
conclusion. For example, Mr. Wetmore testified that,
Further, EDL apparently
has the ability
. Additionally, during development of the Accused
Products,
Moreover, Entrust, Inc. and EDL also have
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, StrikeForce respectfully requests that Entrust’s motion for
protective order be denied.
12 StrikeForce was intending on filing a cross-motion to compel concerning the 30(b)(6)
depositions. Counsel for Entrust and StrikeForce conferred and agreed that StrikeForce’s crossmotion
would be unnecessary in view of Entrust’s motion. In view of this, StrikeForce believes
that is appropriate in this Response to request that the Court issue an order compelling the second
deposition.
(0)
(0)Zerify Inc (ZRFY) Stock Research Links
WORDS TO LIVE BY:
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
Get .... PrivacyLok https://cyberidguard.com/
Try SafeVchat: https://cyberidguard.com/
My comments are only my opinion and are not to be used for investment advice.
Please conduct your own due diligence before choosing to buy or sell any stock.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
Get .... PrivacyLok https://cyberidguard.com/
Try SafeVchat: https://cyberidguard.com/
My comments are only my opinion and are not to be used for investment advice.
Please conduct your own due diligence before choosing to buy or sell any stock.
Scroll down for more posts ▼