Ohio federal judge issues order in Flock Safety lawsuit

single source· 1 articles · confidence: low · first seen 2026-09-17 00:00 UTC

What this means for you

Nothing to act on. There is no holding, no remedy and no decision date in the available record, so there is no way to tell which claims survived and which did not. Anyone tracking this needs the opinion text itself, not the docket entry.

A federal judge in the Northern District of Ohio has issued a memorandum of opinion and order in Smith v. Flock Safety, case number 5:23-CV-2198. Judge Benita Y. Pearson's order resolves a batch of motions listed at docket entries 7, 11, 12, 14, 22, 26 and 31. The available record does not say what was decided, on what reasoning, or on what date. The AI Incident Database, which catalogues the matter as incident 1694, dated its entry 17 September 2026. No details of Flock Safety's technology or the underlying claims appear in the material.

Key facts

  • ·The case is Smith v. Flock Safety, No. 5:23-CV-2198, in the US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. source
  • ·Judge Benita Y. Pearson issued the memorandum of opinion and order. source
  • ·The order resolves motions filed at ECF Nos. 7, 11, 12, 14, 22, 26 and 31. source
  • ·The aggregator records the matter as incident 1694, with an entry dated 17 September 2026. source

What the sources say

Sources

The original reporting. Follow these — they did the work.

← the wire