Opinion
Civil Action 20-11217-FDS
09-27-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendant.
ORDER ON MOTIONS TO STRIKE
SAYLOR, C.J.
The government has moved to strike the December 8, 2022 declaration of Charles Moorman, a CDF employee, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c)(1). It contends that Regeneron was obligated, but failed, to produce his declaration to the government in a timely manner.The government asserts that Regeneron should therefore be precluded from relying on that evidence, including in the surrebuttal report of its expert, Peter Resnick. Regeneron has opposed the motion, contending that its disclosure was timely and reasonable, and that to the extent there was any delay, it was substantially justified and harmless.
The Moorman declaration was submitted on January 31, 2023, as an exhibit to Regeneron's statement of facts in support of its motion for summary judgment. (See Docket No. 247, Ex. 40).
For its part, Regeneron has moved to strike the March 8, 2023 declaration of Dennis Regan, a government expert, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c)(1), contending that his declaration contains new conclusions and analysis not contained anywhere in his earlier expert reports.Regeneron asserts that the government should be precluded from relying on that evidence in support of its motion for partial summary judgment or in any future proceedings. The government has opposed the motion, contending that the Regan declaration does not offer new opinions, but “merely provides subsidiary details . . . in order to provide context” on a single datapoint.
The Regan declaration was submitted as an exhibit to the government's reply to Regeneron's additional facts. (See Docket No. 267, Ex. 10). The government also cited the Regan declaration in its reply in support of its motion for partial summary judgment. (See Docket No. 266).
For present purposes, the Court will deny both motions without prejudice as moot. The Court did not rely on the Moorman or Regan declarations in deciding the parties' summary judgment motions. The government's motion to strike (Docket No. 272) and Regeneron's motion to strike (Docket No. 302) are DENIED without prejudice to their renewal at a later stage of the proceedings. The Court takes no position at this time as to issues raised concerning the use of the challenged declarations in connection with expert testimony at the trial or for any other purposes.
So Ordered.