From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Depomed, Inc. v. Lupin Pharms. Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION
Nov 7, 2011
Case No. 4:09-cv-05587-PJH (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2011)

Opinion

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

11-07-2011

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 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterdefendant DEPOMED, INC.


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 (136184) BRYAN K. JAMES (260753)

SHANE G. SMITH (272630)

Attorneys for DEPOMED, INC.

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER

CHANGING TIME AND REQUEST FOR

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH THE

HONORABLE JUDGE HAMILTON

AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT

Ctrm: 3

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 good-faith 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, the parties have not been granted an extension of the Pretrial Schedule;

WHEREAS, the requested time modifications will have a minor effect on the Court ordered Pretrial Conference (July 12, 2012) or Trial date (August 13, 2012); assuming the Court is available.

WHEREAS, the parties assert that the anticipated trial length to be five (5) days, not twelve (12) as previously noted.

WHEREAS, the trial attorneys for Lupin have other trials set for August 2012;

WHEREAS, the parties respectfully request a trial date in late September or October 2012; and

WHEREAS, if necessary the parties will consider the option of being "second set" assuming the Court has a trial previously set on a date in late September or October 2012.

WHEREAS, the parties respectfully request to schedule a short telephone Conference with Judge Hamilton to explain these facts in more detail.

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 20, 2012 ¦ ¦and Issues on Which Expert ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Reports will be Proffered ¦ ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------+-----------------+-----------------¦ ¦Expert Reports on Issue Party¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Bears Burden of Proof; ¦December 12, 2011¦January 27, 2012 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Any Affirmative Expert Report¦ ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------+-----------------+-----------------¦ ¦Rebuttal Expert Reports ¦January 12, 2012 ¦February 17, 2012¦ +-----------------------------+-----------------+-----------------¦ ¦Close of Expert Discovery ¦January 25, 2012 ¦March 12, 2012 ¦ +-----------------------------+-----------------+-----------------¦ ¦L/D File Dispositive Motions ¦February 15, 2012¦March 19, 2012 ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------+

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦Event ¦Date ¦Proposed Date ¦ +--------------------------------+----------------+-----------------------¦ ¦Opposition Briefs to Dispositive¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦March 6, 2012 ¦April 4, 2012 ¦ ¦Motions ¦ ¦ ¦ +--------------------------------+----------------+-----------------------¦ ¦Reply Briefs to Dispositive ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦March 16, 2012 ¦April 11, 2012 ¦ ¦Motions ¦ ¦ ¦ +--------------------------------+----------------+-----------------------¦ ¦ ¦April 11, 2012 ¦ ¦ ¦Dispositive Motions Hearing ¦ ¦April 25, 2012 ¦ ¦ ¦(by Court Order)¦ ¦ +--------------------------------+----------------+-----------------------¦ ¦ ¦July 12, 2012 ¦September 13, 2012 ¦ ¦Pretrial Conference +----------------+-----------------------¦ ¦ ¦(by Court Order)¦(by Court Order) ¦ +--------------------------------+----------------+-----------------------¦ ¦ ¦August 13, 2012 ¦October 15, 2012 ¦ ¦Trial (up to 5 Days) ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦(by Court Order)¦(second place position)¦ +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

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, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that all counsel of record is being served on November 2, 2011with a copy of this document via the Court's CM/ECF system.

DURE 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
Nov 7, 2011
Case No. 4:09-cv-05587-PJH (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 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: Nov 7, 2011

Citations

Case No. 4:09-cv-05587-PJH (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2011)