a party’s claim where the party “provided] no legal support for his argument or any persuasive reason” for the court to find in his favor). The Court sees no persuasive reason to dismiss Skold’s entire Complaint based on this unsupported argument. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss the Complaint against L.P. and S.A. on this ground shall be denied. Regarding Inc.: although Skold did fail to bring in a senior-level executive to try to resolve the dispute — as he was required to do under the dispute resolution provision — Inc.’s participation in the TTAB proceedings waived any rights it may have had to seek to have the parties’ executives negotiate an end to the dispute. See, e.g., LBL Skysystems (USA), Inc. v. APG-Am., Inc., No. 02-5379, 2005 WL 2140240, at *30 (E.D.Pa. Aug. 31, 2005) (<HOLDING>); Smith v. IMG Worldwide, Inc., 360 F.Supp.2d
holding that a party that engages in discovery and files pretrial motions waives a contracts alternative dispute resolution provision holding that a credit card company could not introduce an alternative dispute resolution provision through a bill stuffer where nothing in the original agreement mentioned dispute resolution holding that there is a presumptive common law right to public access to all material filed in connection with nondiscovery pretrial motions  but no such right as to discovery motions and their supporting documents holding in part that the presumption of public access attaches to pretrialnondiscovery motions whether preliminary or dispositive and the materials briefs and documents filed with the court in support of or in opposition to such motions but not to pretrial discovery motions holding that the clock was tolled from the day the lastarraigned defendant appeared before a judicial officer because at that time several defendants already had filed pretrial motions and pretrial motions of some type remained pending for over two years