Source Production & Equipment Co., Inc. et al v. Schehr et al, No. 2:2016cv17528 - Document 247 (E.D. La. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS - IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Conversion (Rec. Doc. 166 ) and the Motion in Limine to Preclude Dr. Roy Parker (Rec. Doc. 150 ) are GRANTED, as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Barry W Ashe on 4/4/2019. (sa)

Download PDF
Source Production & Equipment Co., Inc. et al v. Schehr et al Doc. 247 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA SOURCE PRODUCTION & EQUIPMENT CO., INC., ASPECT TECHNOLOGY LIMITED, SPECMED, LLC, SPEC MED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, LLC AND SPEC INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, LLC CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-17528 SECTION M (1) VERSUS KEVEN J. SCHEHR, ISOFLEX USA, ISOFLEX RADIOACTIVE LLC, RICHARD H. MCKANNAY, JR., AND JOHN DOES 1-10 ORDER & REASONS Before the Court are: (1) a motion for partial summary judgment on plaintiffs’ conversion claim filed by defendant Kevin J. Schehr;1 to which plaintiffs Source Production & Equipment Co., Inc. (“SPEC”), Aspect Technology Limited (“ATL”), Specmed, LLC (“Specmed”), Spec Med Intellectual Property, LLC (“SMIP”), and Spec Intellectual Property, LLC (“SPI”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) respond stating that they do not oppose the dismissal of this claim with prejudice because they no longer seek to pursue it at trial;2 and (2) Defendants’ motion in limine to preclude Dr. Roy Parker (“Parker”) from testifying regarding Plaintiffs’ alleged trade secrets and to exclude expert testimony about opinions not disclosed in the written reports of Plaintiffs’ experts, Parker and Garry A. Pate (“Pate”).3 Plaintiffs respond that Parker will not testify regarding Plaintiffs’ trade secrets, and neither 1 R. Doc. 166. R. Doc. 179. 3 R. Doc. 150. 2 Dockets.Justia.com Parker nor Pate will offer expert testimony on subjects not disclosed in their respective written reports.4 Defendants filed a reply arguing that, in light of Plaintiffs’ memorandum, their motion should be granted as unopposed.5 The Court agrees. Because neither motion is opposed, IT IS ORDERED that both motions (R. Docs. 166 & 150) are GRANTED. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 4th day of April, 2019. ________________________________ BARRY W. ASHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 4 5 R. Doc. 180. R. Doc. 225. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.