From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Depomed, Inc. v. Lupin Pharms. Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION
Oct 24, 2011
Case No. 4:09-cv-05587-PJH (N.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. 4:09-cv-05587-PJH

10-24-2011

DEPOMED, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff and Counterdefendant, v. LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., a Virginia corporation, and LUPIN LIMITED, an Indian corporation, Defendants and Counterclaimants.

DURIE TANGRI LLP DARALYN J. DURIE SONALI D. MAITRA RAKOCZY MOLINO MAZZOCHI SIWIK LLP WILLIAM A. RAKOCZY PAUL J. MOLINO RACHEL PERNIC WALDRON HEINZ J. SALMEN Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaimants LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. a Virginia corporation, and LUPIN LIMITED, an Indian corporation McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP WILLIAM G. GAEDE, III TERRENCE P. MCMAHON ANDREW A. KUMAMOTO Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterdefendant DEPOMED, INC. SONALI D. MAITRA


DURIE TANGRI LLP

DARALYN J. DURIE (SBN 169825)

SONALI D. MAITRA (SBN 254896)

RAKOCZY MOLINO MAZZOCHI SIWIK LLP

WILLIAM A. RAKOCZY (Pro Hac Vice)

PAUL J. MOLINO (Pro Hac Vice)

RACHEL PERNIC WALDRON (Pro Hac Vice)

HEINZ J. SALMEN (Pro Hac Vice)

Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaimants LUPIN

PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and LUPIN LIMITED

MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP

WILLIAM G. GAEDE, III (SBN 136184)

TERRENCE P. MCMAHON (SBN 071910)

ANDREW A. KUMAMOTO (SBN 178541)

Attorneys for DEPOMED, INC.

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER

CHANGING TIME AND ORDER DENYING

REQUEST

Judge: Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton

WHEREAS, by order dated July 26, 2011, the Court set a Pretrial Schedule Following the Further Case Management Conference (hereafter "Pretrial Schedule");

WHEREAS, the parties engaged in alternative dispute resolution on September 29, 2011;

WHEREAS, the parties continue to engage in mediator-guided settlement discussions;

WHEREAS, the parties agree that an extension of the Pretrial Schedule dates will potentially preserve the parties' and Court's resources in light of ongoing settlement discussions;

WHEREAS, this is the parties' first request for an extension of the Pretrial Schedule;

WHEREAS, the requested time modifications will have no effect on the Court ordered Pretrial Conference (July 12, 2012) or Trial date (August 13, 2012);

THEREFORE, pursuant to Local Rule 6-2, and subject to the approval of this Court, the parties, through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree that:

The Pretrial Schedule be amended as follows:

+--------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ Event ¦ Date ¦ Proposed Date ¦ +--------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------¦ ¦Close of Fact Discovery; ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Summary Disclosure of Experts ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦November 28, 2011¦January 31, 2012 ¦ ¦and Issues on Which Expert ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Reports will be Proffered ¦ ¦ ¦ +--------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------¦ ¦Expert Reports on Issue Party ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +-----------------+-----------------¦ ¦Bears Burden of Proof; ¦December 12, 2011¦February 10, 2012¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------¦ ¦Any Affirmative Expert Report ¦ ¦ ¦ +--------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------¦ ¦Rebuttal Expert Reports ¦January 12, 2012 ¦March 2, 2012 ¦ +--------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------¦ ¦Close of Expert Discovery ¦January 25, 2012 ¦March 16, 2012 ¦ +--------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------¦ ¦L/D File Dispositive Motions ¦February 15, 2012¦March 30, 2012 ¦ +--------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------¦ ¦Opposition Briefs to Dispositive¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦March 6, 2012 ¦April 16, 2012 ¦ ¦Motions ¦ ¦ ¦ +--------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------¦ ¦Reply Briefs to Dispositive ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦March 16, 2012 ¦April 25, 2012 ¦ ¦Motions ¦ ¦ ¦ +--------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------¦ ¦ ¦April 11, 2012 ¦ ¦ ¦Dispositive Motions Hearing ¦ ¦May 9, 2012 ¦ ¦ ¦(by Court Order) ¦ ¦ +--------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------¦ ¦ ¦July 12, 2012 ¦July 12, 2012 ¦ ¦Pretrial Conference +-----------------+-----------------¦ ¦ ¦(by Court Order) ¦(by Court Order) ¦ +--------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------¦ ¦ ¦August 13, 2012 ¦August 13, 2012 ¦ ¦Trial (up to 12 Days) +-----------------+-----------------¦ ¦ ¦(by Court Order) ¦(by Court Order) ¦ +--------------------------------------------------------------------+

DURIE TANGRI LLP

DARALYN J. DURIE

SONALI D. MAITRA

RAKOCZY MOLINO MAZZOCHI SIWIK LLP

WILLIAM A. RAKOCZY

PAUL J. MOLINO

RACHEL PERNIC WALDRON

HEINZ J. SALMEN

Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaimants

LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. a Virginia

corporation, and LUPIN LIMITED, an Indian

corporation

McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP

WILLIAM G. GAEDE, III

TERRENCE P. MCMAHON

ANDREW A. KUMAMOTO

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterdefendant

DEPOMED, INC.

FILER'S ATTESTATION

Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X (B) regarding signatures, I, Sonali D. Maitra, attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained.

SONALI D. MAITRA

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Upon stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing therefore, REQUEST IS DENIED. THE COURT REQUIRES 120 DAYS BETWEEN DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS HEARING DATE AND TRIAL DATE.

HON. PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that all counsel of record is being served on October 24, 2011with a copy of this document via the Court's CM/ECF system.

DURIE TANGRI LLP

SONALI D. MAITRA

Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaimants

LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. a Virginia

corporation, and LUPIN LIMITED, an Indian

corporation


Summaries of

Depomed, Inc. v. Lupin Pharms. Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION
Oct 24, 2011
Case No. 4:09-cv-05587-PJH (N.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2011)
Case details for

Depomed, Inc. v. Lupin Pharms. Inc.

Case Details

Full title:DEPOMED, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff and Counterdefendant…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION

Date published: Oct 24, 2011

Citations

Case No. 4:09-cv-05587-PJH (N.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2011)