Carter v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation
ORDER re 40 Response (Non Motion) filed by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. The proposed Final Scheduling Order will issue with the changes set forth in this Order. Plaintiff should respond to the pending motion to dismiss (de#37) as soon as practicable, and no later than April 5, 2013. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 3/212/13. (kpr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EDWARD CARTER, substituted
on behalf of Patsy Carter, deceased
NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORP.
The Court appreciates the joint report.
1. The proposed Final Scheduling Order will issue with these changes:
Plaintiff must list additional damage witnesses by 12 April2013; the pre-trial
will be 17 January 2014; and the trial will start 27 January 2014. (The new trial
date creates the possibility of a conflict with criminal settings, but we'll sort
that out when we get closer.) The Court allots ten six-hour days for trial
-one of which will be consumed by voir dire, opening statements, and closing
The remaining nine days will be split evenly with cross
examination counting against each side's time. Counsel should plan their
Plaintiff should respond to the pending motion as soon as
practicable, and no later than 5 April 2013. Defendants are correct: the
applicable federal and local rules prescribe the time for responding to any
motion, absent an Order dictating otherwise, and there is none. Both parties
should follow the usual response/reply times of 14/7 calendar days. Please
seek extensions only when you really need them. The Court grants plaintiff
more time to respond to this motion because it is potentially dispositive.
3. The Court is unfamiliar with the confidentiality Orders entered by
the MDL. Defendants should move unopposed to adopt, either providing
docket citations or attaching copies.
D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.