Use this searchbox to search JudicialCaselaw.com for more interesting court decisions.

IN RE NAMENDA INDIRECT PURCHASER ANTITRUST LITIGATION (1:15-cv-06549-CM-RWL)

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Share on Social Media

IN RE NAMENDA INDIRECT PURCHASER ANTITRUST LITIGATION (1:15-cv-06549-CM-RWL)

Follow on Feedly for case updates: follow us on feedly

RSS: RSS Feed Icon

  • ORDER terminating (Document 355) Letter Motion for Discovery. This resolves Defendants' request to compel and for sanctions in regard to non-party True Health Benefits (THB), represented by Plaintiff's counsel (Dkt. 355). 1. No later than January 2 7, 2020, THB shall complete document production and certify that it has done so. 2. THB shall make its witness available for deposition no later than January 31, 2020. 3. The Court finds THB's conduct to be far from diligent but denies the request for a finding of contempt and for sanctions. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 1/20/2020) Copies transmitted to all counsel of record via ECF. (mml)

  • ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' LETTER MOTION TO COMPEL: The IPPs have until April 24 to retain their experts and submit expert reports. If defense counsel believe that it is necessary to obtain supplemental reports from their experts after receiving the IPP expert reports (and after the phone conference, I have every reason to believe that they will), those supplemental reports must be provided no later than June 12. Expert depositions must be completed by July 31. Motions for summary judgment and Daubert motions must be submitted by September 11. Oppositions to motions for summary judgment and Daubert motions must be submitted by October 9. Reply briefs in further support of motions for summary judgment and Daubert motions must be submitted by October 23. SO ORDERED. (Deposition due by 7/31/2020. Motions due by 9/11/2020. Responses due by 10/9/2020. Replies due by 10/23/2020.) (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 1/17/2020) (mml)

  • ORDER terminating (Document 344) Letter Motion to Compel. I need a conference with the lawyers for the DPP and IPP plaintiffs to work this out. This matter really does not concern defendants. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 1/9/2020) (mml)

  • ORDER granting (Document 296) Letter Motion for Discovery. Defendants' letter motion to compel Plaintiff to revise its responses to the requests for admission identified in Dkt. 296 is granted for substantially the reasons set forth in Dkt. 296 and 29 9. The deadline for issuing RFAs is just that - a deadline; it does not limit issuing RFAs at an earlier time. The RFAs also are not duplicative of earlier discovery in direct purchaser litigation, nor could they be as Plaintiff is not a party to tha t case. The Court has considered all other opposing arguments by Plaintiff and finds them without merit. Plaintiff shall serve revised responses to the RFas at issue by January 28, 2020. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 1/1/2020) (mml)

  • ORDER terminating (Document 316) Letter Motion to Compel. This Order addresses the parties' disagreement about the extent to which Plaintiff may pursue additional depositions. (See Dkt. 316, 320, 321.) As noted by Defendants, the stipulation and order r egarding use of evidence from other actions bars deposition examination of either previously-deposed or new witnesses about topics for which there has been prior testimony in either the NYAG Action or OPP Action. (Dkt. 206 at No. 3.) That said, the s tipulation and order is not as restrictive as Defendants make it out to be. Accordingly: 1. Plaintiff must identify with greater particularity the deposition topics it intends to pursue for each proposed deponent and in a way that explains why the te stimony sought is non-duplicative. 2. The Court finds sufficient Plaintiff's explanation for deposing witnesses Burchard and Solomon provided in Dkt. 321. This disclosure also shows that Plaintiff can provide adequate description to Defendants w ithout the need for in camera review at this juncture. 3. By December 23, 2019, Plaintiff shall provide Defendants with an updated disclosure. To the extent Defendants continue to object, they shall provide a written response to Plaintiff by December 30, 2019. By January 7, 2020, the parties shall then meet and confer in person. If any disputes remain, then by January 10, 2020, Plaintiff shall apprise the Court by letter. Defendants may respond by letter no later than January 14, 2020, as further set forth in this Order. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 12/16/2019) (mml)

Use this searchbox to search JudicialCaselaw.com for more interesting court decisions.

IN RE NAMENDA INDIRECT PURCHASER ANTITRUST LITIGATION (1:15-cv-06549-CM-RWL)

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Share this with your network