Cloward H2o

General

Total Cases3

Active Cases1

Patents--

TypeOperating Company

Elite Ratings

--

Ratings

Experience

Grade

Trend

DCT

--

--

--

PTAB

--

--

--

CAFC

--

--

--

Analytics

Cases

Litigated Patents

Ratings Trends

Recent Dockets

Entered	Case	Description
10/21/24	Crystal Lagoons US Corp v. Cloward H2o 2:19-CV-00796 ( D. UT )	MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part [419] Motion for Leave to File Sealed and [423] Motion for Leave to File Sealed Document. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg on 10/21/2024. (mh) (Entered: 10/21/2024)
10/18/24	Crystal Lagoons US Corp v. Cloward H2o 2:19-CV-00796 ( D. UT )	NOTICE of Filing of Revised Redacted Copy of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Consolidated Motion for Summary Judgment by Crystal Lagoons Technologies, Crystal Lagoons US Corp re 460 Order on Motion for Leave to File Sealed Document,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, (Byers, Doyle) (Entered: 10/18/2024)
10/15/24	Crystal Lagoons US Corp v. Cloward H2o 2:19-CV-00796 ( D. UT )	NOTICE OF FILING of Revised Redacted Copy of Defendant's Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert Richard F. Bero re 454 Order on Motion for Leave to File Sealed Document,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, filed by Consol Defendant Pacific Aquascape International. (Braithwaite, Jared) (Entered: 10/15/2024)
10/11/24	Crystal Lagoons US Corp v. Cloward H2o 2:19-CV-00796 ( D. UT )	DOCKET TEXT ORDER granting in part and denying in part [440] Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Sealed Documents; granting [442] Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Sealed Documents. Plaintiffs moved to seal portions of their [437] opposition to [378] Defendant's motion to summary judgment, and Exhibits 36, 37, and 41 to the opposition. Plaintiffs argue Exhibit 41 and related portions of the opposition warrant sealing because they contain Plaintiffs' sensitive business information. Plaintiffs moved to seal Exhibits 36 and 37 and related portions of the opposition based solely on Defendant's designations. Defendant argues Exhibits 36 and 37 warrant sealing because they contain Defendant's sensitive business information, but Defendant does not seek to seal related portions of the opposition. The court ORDERS as follows: 1. Exhibit 36, 37, and 41, and portions of the opposition relating to Exhibit 41, warrant sealing for the reasons stated in the parties' motions to seal. The opposition contains only one brief reference to Exhibit 41, leaving the majority of Plaintiffs' arguments public. Under these circumstances, the parties' confidentiality interests outweigh the public interest in access at this stage. Therefore, these exhibits and the unredacted version of the opposition (Doc. No. 439, including attachments) shall remain sealed until otherwise ordered. This determination may be revisited if the sealed information is later used to determine the parties' substantive legal rights. 2. The portions of the opposition referencing Exhibits 36 and 37 shall be unsealed, where no party seeks to seal them. Within seven days, Plaintiffs shall file a new, redacted version of the [437] opposition, removing redactions related to Exhibits 36 and 37. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg on 10/11/2024. No attached document. (med) (Entered: 10/11/2024) DOCKET TEXT ORDER granting in part and denying in part [440] Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Sealed Documents; granting [442] Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Sealed Documents. Plaintiffs moved to seal portions of their [437] opposition to [378] Defendant's motion to summary judgment, and Exhibits 36, 37, and 41 to the opposition. Plaintiffs argue Exhibit 41 and related portions of the opposition warrant sealing because they contain Plaintiffs' sensitive business information. Plaintiffs moved to seal Exhibits 36 and 37 and related portions of the opposition based solely on Defendant's designations. Defendant argues Exhibits 36 and 37 warrant sealing because they contain Defendant's sensitive business information, but Defendant does not seek to seal related portions of the opposition. The court ORDERS as follows: 1. Exhibit 36, 37, and 41, and portions of the opposition relating to Exhibit 41, warrant sealing for the reasons stated in the parties' motions to seal. The opposition contains only one brief reference to Exhibit 41, leaving the majority of Plaintiffs' arguments public. Under these circumstances, the parties' confidentiality interests outweigh the public interest in access at this stage. Therefore, these exhibits and the unredacted version of the opposition (Doc. No. 439, including attachments) shall remain sealed until otherwise ordered. This determination may be revisited if the sealed information is later used to determine the parties' substantive legal rights. 2. The portions of the opposition referencing Exhibits 36 and 37 shall be unsealed, where no party seeks to seal them. Within seven days, Plaintiffs shall file a new, redacted version of the [437] opposition, removing redactions related to Exhibits 36 and 37. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg on 10/11/2024. No attached document. (med) (Entered: 10/11/2024)
10/11/24	Crystal Lagoons US Corp v. Cloward H2o 2:19-CV-00796 ( D. UT )	DOCKET TEXT ORDER terminating [438] Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Sealed Document, based on the filing of a corrected version of the motion at [440] . Signed by Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg on 10/11/2024. No attached document. (med) (Entered: 10/11/2024)
10/11/24	Crystal Lagoons US Corp v. Cloward H2o 2:19-CV-00796 ( D. UT )	DOCKET TEXT ORDER granting [429] Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Sealed Document; granting [436] Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Sealed Document. These motions seek to seal portions of [428] Defendant's reply in support of [369] Defendant's motion to exclude Plaintiffs' Expert Richard F. Bero which reference sealed information from Mr. Bero's expert report. Where the court has previously granted leave to file Mr. Bero's expert report under seal (see Doc. Nos. [402] , 454), and the redactions in the reply are narrowly tailored, sealing is warranted at this stage. The unredacted version of the reply (Doc. No. 430) shall remain sealed until otherwise ordered. This determination may be revisited if the sealed information is later used to determine the parties' substantive legal rights. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg on 10/11/2024. No attached document. (med) (Entered: 10/11/2024) DOCKET TEXT ORDER granting [429] Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Sealed Document; granting [436] Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Sealed Document. These motions seek to seal portions of [428] Defendant's reply in support of [369] Defendant's motion to exclude Plaintiffs' Expert Richard F. Bero which reference sealed information from Mr. Bero's expert report. Where the court has previously granted leave to file Mr. Bero's expert report under seal (see Doc. Nos. [402] , 454), and the redactions in the reply are narrowly tailored, sealing is warranted at this stage. The unredacted version of the reply (Doc. No. 430) shall remain sealed until otherwise ordered. This determination may be revisited if the sealed information is later used to determine the parties' substantive legal rights. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg on 10/11/2024. No attached document. (med) (Entered: 10/11/2024)
10/11/24	Crystal Lagoons US Corp v. Cloward H2o 2:19-CV-00796 ( D. UT )	DOCKET TEXT ORDER finding as moot [379] Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Sealed Documents, filed in connection with [378] Defendant's motion for summary judgment. This motion to seal is moot based on the court's May 23, 2024 order [402] regarding the sealing of documents related to the motion for summary judgment, and Defendant's subsequent filing of a new redacted version of the motion for summary judgment [422] with certain exhibits unsealed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg on 10/11/2024. No attached document. (med) (Entered: 10/11/2024) DOCKET TEXT ORDER finding as moot [379] Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Sealed Documents, filed in connection with [378] Defendant's motion for summary judgment. This motion to seal is moot based on the court's May 23, 2024 order [402] regarding the sealing of documents related to the motion for summary judgment, and Defendant's subsequent filing of a new redacted version of the motion for summary judgment [422] with certain exhibits unsealed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg on 10/11/2024. No attached document. (med) (Entered: 10/11/2024)
10/11/24	Crystal Lagoons US Corp v. Cloward H2o 2:19-CV-00796 ( D. UT )	DOCKET TEXT ORDER denying [376] Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Sealed Documents. Defendant moved to seal Exhibits 1 and 3 to [375] Defendant's Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert Jennifer Norlin, based solely on Plaintiffs' confidentiality designations. Plaintiffs did not file a separate motion to seal within the deadline set by the court (see Doc. Nos. 388, [393] ), or anytime thereafter. Further, the same documents (Ms. Norlin's expert report and deposition) were later filed publicly as Exhibits 7 and 9 to Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. Nos. 422-5 and 422-7). Therefore, Exhibits 1 and 3 (Doc. No. 377, including attachments) to the [375] motion to exclude shall be unsealed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg on 10/11/2024. No attached document. (med) (Entered: 10/11/2024) DOCKET TEXT ORDER denying [376] Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Sealed Documents. Defendant moved to seal Exhibits 1 and 3 to [375] Defendant's Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert Jennifer Norlin, based solely on Plaintiffs' confidentiality designations. Plaintiffs did not file a separate motion to seal within the deadline set by the court (see Doc. Nos. 388, [393] ), or anytime thereafter. Further, the same documents (Ms. Norlin's expert report and deposition) were later filed publicly as Exhibits 7 and 9 to Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. Nos. 422-5 and 422-7). Therefore, Exhibits 1 and 3 (Doc. No. 377, including attachments) to the [375] motion to exclude shall be unsealed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg on 10/11/2024. No attached document. (med) (Entered: 10/11/2024)
10/11/24	Crystal Lagoons US Corp v. Cloward H2o 2:19-CV-00796 ( D. UT )	DOCKET TEXT ORDER denying [373] Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Sealed Documents. Defendant moved to seal Exhibits 1 and 3 to [372] Defendant's Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert Christopher D. Lidstone, based solely on Plaintiffs' confidentiality designations. Plaintiffs did not file a separate motion to seal within the deadline set by the court (see Doc. Nos. 388, [393] ), or anytime thereafter. Further, the same documents (Mr. Lidstone's expert report and deposition) were later filed publicly as Exhibits 4 and 6 to Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. Nos. 422-2 and 422-4). Therefore, Exhibits 1 and 3 (Doc. No. 374, including attachments) to the [372] motion to exclude shall be unsealed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg on 10/11/2024. No attached document. (med) (Entered: 10/11/2024) DOCKET TEXT ORDER denying [373] Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Sealed Documents. Defendant moved to seal Exhibits 1 and 3 to [372] Defendant's Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert Christopher D. Lidstone, based solely on Plaintiffs' confidentiality designations. Plaintiffs did not file a separate motion to seal within the deadline set by the court (see Doc. Nos. 388, [393] ), or anytime thereafter. Further, the same documents (Mr. Lidstone's expert report and deposition) were later filed publicly as Exhibits 4 and 6 to Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. Nos. 422-2 and 422-4). Therefore, Exhibits 1 and 3 (Doc. No. 374, including attachments) to the [372] motion to exclude shall be unsealed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg on 10/11/2024. No attached document. (med) (Entered: 10/11/2024)
10/11/24	Crystal Lagoons US Corp v. Cloward H2o 2:19-CV-00796 ( D. UT )	DOCKET TEXT ORDER granting in part and denying in part [370] Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Sealed Documents; granting [397] Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Sealed Documents. Defendant moved to seal portions of its [369] Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert Richard F. Bero and Exhibits 1 through 6 thereto, based solely on Plaintiffs' confidentiality designations. Plaintiffs moved to seal Exhibits 1 through 3 and 6, arguing these exhibits contain Plaintiffs' sensitive and competitive business information. Plaintiffs do not seek to seal Exhibits 4 and 5. The court ORDERS as follows:1. Exhibits 1 through 3 and 6, and related portions of the [369] motion to exclude, warrant sealing for the reasons stated in Plaintiffs' motion to seal. Where the sealed information is filed in connection with a nondispositive motion, Plaintiffs' confidentiality interests outweigh the public interest in access at this stage. Further, the court has previously granted leave to file Exhibits 1 and 2 (Mr. Bero's expert report and deposition) under seal as exhibits to Defendant's motion for summary judgment. (See Doc. No. [402] .) Therefore, the unredacted version of the motion to exclude and Exhibits 1 through 3 and 6 (Doc. Nos. 371, 371-1, 371-2, 371-3, 371-6) shall remain sealed until otherwise ordered. This determination may be revisited if the sealed information is later used to determine the parties' substantive legal rights. 2. Exhibits 4 and 5 and related portions of the [369] motion to exclude shall be unsealed, where no party seeks to seal them. The clerk's office is directed to unseal Exhibits 4 and 5 (Doc. Nos. 371-4 and 371-5). Within seven days, Defendant shall file a new, redacted version of the [369] motion to exclude, removing the redactions which relate to Exhibits 4 and 5. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg on 10/11/2024. No attached document. (med) (Entered: 10/11/2024) DOCKET TEXT ORDER granting in part and denying in part [370] Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Sealed Documents; granting [397] Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Sealed Documents. Defendant moved to seal portions of its [369] Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert Richard F. Bero and Exhibits 1 through 6 thereto, based solely on Plaintiffs' confidentiality designations. Plaintiffs moved to seal Exhibits 1 through 3 and 6, arguing these exhibits contain Plaintiffs' sensitive and competitive business information. Plaintiffs do not seek to seal Exhibits 4 and 5. The court ORDERS as follows:1. Exhibits 1 through 3 and 6, and related portions of the [369] motion to exclude, warrant sealing for the reasons stated in Plaintiffs' motion to seal. Where the sealed information is filed in connection with a nondispositive motion, Plaintiffs' confidentiality interests outweigh the public interest in access at this stage. Further, the court has previously granted leave to file Exhibits 1 and 2 (Mr. Bero's expert report and deposition) under seal as exhibits to Defendant's motion for summary judgment. (See Doc. No. [402] .) Therefore, the unredacted version of the motion to exclude and Exhibits 1 through 3 and 6 (Doc. Nos. 371, 371-1, 371-2, 371-3, 371-6) shall remain sealed until otherwise ordered. This determination may be revisited if the sealed information is later used to determine the parties' substantive legal rights. 2. Exhibits 4 and 5 and related portions of the [369] motion to exclude shall be unsealed, where no party seeks to seal them. The clerk's office is directed to unseal Exhibits 4 and 5 (Doc. Nos. 371-4 and 371-5). Within seven days, Defendant shall file a new, redacted version of the [369] motion to exclude, removing the redactions which relate to Exhibits 4 and 5. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg on 10/11/2024. No attached document. (med) (Entered: 10/11/2024)