Opinion
01 Civ.8095 (HB)
August 8, 2002
OPINION ORDER
Plaintiff Innomed Labs, LLC ("Innomed") appeals pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a) a discovery ruling by Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis with respect to various scheduling issues. For the following reasons, the order by Magistrate Judge Ellis is affirmed.
I. DISCUSSION
The Court assumes familiarity with the discussion of the background facts as set forth in Innomed Labs, LLC., v. Alza Corp. and Johnson Johnson, 01 Civ.8095, 2002 WL 1628943 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2002). On June 14, 2002, I referred all discovery disputes to Judge Ellis.
On August 5, 2002, Judge Ellis held a conference with the parties during which he ordered that Innomed's deposition of the Warner Lambert witness will take place on Thursday, August 8, 2002, and that Innomed will serve its expert report no later than August 13, 2002.
In what I hope does not become standard practice by the plaintiff, Innomed seeks to modify the discovery schedule imposed by Judge Ellis. I have reviewed the parties' letters submitted on this issue and at the heart of Innomed's request is the fact that its lead counsel Paul Corcoran is scheduled to be abroad, apparently on vacation, until August 13, 2002. I have no doubt, however, that Jennifer Klausner, also a partner at plaintiffs law firm and who has been, as far as I can tell, extensively involved in this litigation, can fill his shoes more than adequately in his absence.
In any event, Innomed nowhere has set forth any arguments to suggest that Judge Ellis' ruling was "clearly erroneous or "contrary to law." See, e.g., Thomas E. Hoar, Inc. v. Sara Lee Corp., 900 F.2d 522, 525 (2d Cir. 1990) (noting that a magistrate's orders regarding discovery are reviewed under the "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard); see also Innomed v. Alza, 2002 WL 1768894, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 30, 2002) (Baer, J.). Judge Ellis' ruling is therefore affirmed.
II. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the order by Magistrate Judge Ellis is affirmed.