Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Warner Chilcott Co., LLC v. Zydus Pharmas. (USA) Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11-1105-RGA (D. Del. Oct. 24, 2013).

Warner Chilcott Co., LLC v. Zydus Pharmas. (USA) Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11-1105-RGA (D. Del. Oct. 24, 2013).

Ratings: (0)|Views: 87|Likes:
Published by YCSTBlog
Warner Chilcott Co., LLC v. Zydus Pharmas. (USA) Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11-1105-RGA (D. Del. Oct. 24, 2013).
Warner Chilcott Co., LLC v. Zydus Pharmas. (USA) Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11-1105-RGA (D. Del. Oct. 24, 2013).

More info:

Published by: YCSTBlog on Oct 29, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/27/2014

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWAREWARNER CHILCOTT COMPANY, LLC,Plaintiff,
v.
ZYDUS PHARMACEUTICALS(USA) INC., et al.,Defendants.Civil Action No. 11-1105-RGAORDERThe Defendant has filed a motion to strike portions
of
two
of
plaintiffs
experts' reports.(D.I. 155). Briefing on the matter concluded October 21, and trial is scheduled for December.These two reports were due with the opening round
of
reports. These are the sorts
of
reports thatare often not due until the second round
of
reports. The scheduling
of
expert reports wasrevised multiple times, but which round
of
reports these two reports belonged to did not change.Plaintiff served both reports with the second round
of
reports. Plaintiff made a mistake. There isno evidence
of
bad faith. When the matter was brought to
Plaintiffs
attention (which Defendantdid not seem to be in any hurry to do -the reports were provided about August 26, and it appearsthat Defendant did not complain about
it
to Plaintiff until September 17), Plaintiff, while notacknowledging error (and it still has not acknowledged error), appeared to respond appropriately
to
Defendant's complaint in seeking to understand what was necessary to alleviate any prejudice
to
Defendant. Defendant appears, however, to have understood that it had gained a tacticaladvantage, and, instead
of
working with Plaintiffto come up with a workable plan, decided topress home its advantage with the instant motion. In my opinion, that approach was a mistake. Iam not going to strike the experts' reports, and I do not intend to continue the trial. The Third
Case 1:11-cv-01105-RGA Document 167 Filed 10/24/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 3117

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->