UnifiedOnline Inc fka UOIP

[Monte_Cristo]

Before I discuss settlement, which I hope to get to in the next post, let me refer you to Judge Andrews' decision a few days ago on June 9th in Astrazeneca v. Sigmapharm. In that case, both plaintiffs and defendants asked for the scheduled trial date to be pushed back because of the complexity of the case (complex set of facts, overseas witnesses, etc.) and the fact that the defendants had changed lawyers a couple times (and it's much harder for new lawyers to simply pick up where past lawyers left off). Judge Andrews denied their joint request. He said, given all the alleged complexities, the parties were expected to plan for the existing dates. And regarding the new lawyers ... well, they're expected to adhere to the existing schedule. Andrews = no nonsense.

Judge Richard G. Andrews recently denied the parties’ joint request to modify the case schedule, without prejudice to be renewed as directed in the Court’s order. AstraZeneca LP v. Sigmapharm Laboratories, LLC, No. 15-1000-RGA (D. Del. June 9, 2017). In particular, the Court noted that the bases for the parties’ request, the complexity of the case and the change in counsel of several defendants, should not require a continuance of the trial and pretrial conference dates. Therefore, Judge Andrews would extend the close of fact discovery, subject to the parties either expediting expert discovery or forgoing Daubert motions so that the trial schedule could be maintained.

Read: https://www.delawareiplaw.com/files/2017/06/AstraZeneca-LP-et-al.-v.-Sigmapharm-Laboratories-LLC-et-al.-C.A.-No.-15-1000-RGA.pdf