ADESANYA v. NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION

Filing 174

LETTER OPINION/ORDER denying w/out prejudice Novartis' informal ltr. that objects to the Local Rule 6.1 requests for extension by Plaintiff Dr. Afoluso Adesanyas to file her discovery motion and by Mr. Adesanyas to file his opposition to Novartis motion for sanctions; etc. Signed by Magistrate Judge Steven C. Mannion on 12/1/15. (DD, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CHAMBERS OF

MARTIN LUTHER KING
COURTHOUSE
50 WALNUT ST.
ROOM 2064
NEWARK, NJ 07101
973-645-3827

STEVEN C. MANNION

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

December 1, 2015

LETTER OPINION/ORDER
Re:

D.E. 147, 155
Afoluso Adesanya v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.
Civil Action No. 13-cv-5564 (SDW-SCM)

Dear Litigants:
Defendant Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. (“Novartis”) has submitted an informal letter that
objects to the Local Rule 6.1 requests for extension by Plaintiff Dr. Afoluso Adesanya’s (“Dr.
Adesanya”) to file her discovery motion and by Mr. Adesanya’s to file his opposition to Novartis’
motion for sanctions.1 The letter also seeks clarification of the Court’s guidance with regard to filings.
Novartis has also submitted an informal letter seeking the Court’s “intervention to resolve” a dispute
regarding the deposition of former Auxillium employees.2
I.

DISCUSSION

A.

Scheduling Disputes and Extensions

Novartis objects to the two extension requests and complains of what it perceives as
conflicting guidance. What should be clear is that all parties shall comply with the Federal Rules, the

1 (ECF Docket Entry No. (“D.E.”) 147).
2 (D.E. 155). Note that the Novartis letter filed at D.E. 156 is almost identical to D.E. 155 and will
not be responded to separately.
1

Local Rules, and the Court’s orders. A pretrial order “controls the course of the action unless the
court modifies it.”3 It should also be clear that the Court retains the discretion to control its calendar,
relax deadlines and any rule. Especially, when doing so (1) expedites disposition of the action; (2)
manages the case; (3) discourages wasteful pretrial activities; (4) improves the quality of trial through
more thorough preparation; and (5) facilitates settlement. 4 Decisions by magistrate judges must be
upheld unless “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 5
For further guidance, the parties may raise the issue as an agenda item for our next status
conference. Meanwhile, counsel should review the Comments to Local Rules 7.1, 7.2, and 10.1 which
discuss the policy of exercising more leniency with deadlines and filings from pro se litigants than with
represented parties.
With regard to these specific requests, Novartis’s objection did not identify any prejudice with
regard to the minimal extensions requested. Accordingly, the pro se extension requests have been
granted and in the meantime Dr. Adesanya’s motion denied.6 Novartis’s letter is typical of the tactics
that have become common in this litigation-- oppose everything, even when the request is reasonable.
The animosity between the parties is already high and not helped by dueling letters, objections to every
request, anticipatory disputes, motions filed over every dispute, and the latest tactic of appealing
pre-trial decisions. Both sides are seeking to recover attorneys’ fees in this case and should be advised
that fees for unnecessary disputes are not likely to be recoverable.

3. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(d).
4. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(a).
5 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
6 (D.E. 141, 159, 163).
2

B.

Motion Practice

Novartis complains that Dr. Adesanya’s extension request did not meet the formal
requirements of the rules, but then filed a letter seeking relief from the Court regarding a dispute over
non-party depositions. Novartis reports that Dr. Adesanya has elected to not attend the noticed
non-party depositions because she is only available on Fridays and instead wished to reserve her “right
to recall the witnesses at a later date.” The parties may “reserve” any rights they think they may have,
but if a motion is filed the Court will decide. That time has not yet come.
Still, Novartis requests “Court intervention to resolve this issue.…”7 There is no justiciable
dispute ripe for resolution and if there were, Novartis’ informal request failed to adhere to the
requirements of Local Civil Rules 7.1 and 7.2. Motions must be made by notice of motion with
certification of service, a proposed order and a brief or statement in lieu of brief where appropriate.8
The informal request here did not include the required papers.9 For these reasons, Novartis’ request
for relief is denied without prejudice.
If the dispute ripens, Novartis may file a motion. Likewise, if there is a motion by Dr.
Adesanya to continue a deposition, the Court will address the application at that time. However, the
parties should know that the time for completing discovery is rapidly drawing to a close. Dr.
Adesanya should also understand that the accommodation of a Friday schedule for her own
deposition, does not bind the Court or Novartis for other depositions or proceedings. She has

7 (D.E. 155). Note that the Novartis letter filed at D.E. 156 is almost identical to D.E. 155 and will
not be responded to separately.
8 L.Civ.R. 7.1(d),(e) and L.Civ.R. 37.1(b).
9 Novartis separately complains about other disputes that were informally raised and have not been
resolved, but has failed to follow through with a motion. See (D.E. 158).
3

chosen to appear pro se and must be available to prosecute her case and defend against Novartis’
counterclaims.
An appropriate order follows.
Order
IT IS on this Tuesday, December 01, 2015,
1. ORDERED that Novartis’ request for relief is denied without prejudice.

12/1/2015 4:24:25 PM

c (via ECF):
Original: Clerk of the Court
Hon. Susan D. Wigenton, U.S.D.J.
cc: All parties

4