SANDOZ INC. et al v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS CORPORATION et al
OPINION AND ORDER that UTC's request for reconsideration of the Special Master's 11/16/2020 Opinion and Order is denied. Signed by Special Master Hon. Jose L. Linares on 12/18/2020. (abr)
Case 3:19-cv-10170-BRM-LHG Document 267 Filed 01/07/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 12218
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
SANDOZ, INC., et ano.,
Civil Action No.: 19-cv-10170
UNITED THERAPEUTICS CORP., et ano.,
OPINION AND ORDER
OF THE SPECIAL DISCOVERY
MASTER REGARDING DEFENDANT’S
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
NOVEMBER 16, 2020 OPINION AND
This matter comes before the Special Master by way of a Letter dated November 27,
2020 on behalf of defendant United Therapeutics Corporation (“UTC”) requesting
reconsideration of the Special Master’s November 16, 2020 Opinion and Order (ECF No. 249)
(“Order”) as it relates to the addition of Dr. Martine Rothblatt as an additional document
The Special Master has reviewed the submissions, including the December 4, 2020
Response from Plaintiffs, and the relevant controlling law. For the reasons set forth below, the
Special Master hereby denies the request for reconsideration.
The Special Master presumes that the parties are familiar with the facts surrounding the
underlying action and claims. Accordingly, the Special Master will only recite the relevant
procedural and factual background necessary to dispose of the dispute at hand.
Case 3:19-cv-10170-BRM-LHG Document 267 Filed 01/07/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 12219
UTC argues the Special Master overlooked the standard for determining who is a
UTC further argues reconsideration is appropriate because of the
“extraordinary burden” resulting from the Order and that the discovery is not proportional to the
needs of the case because the Order in total added more than 76,000 documents to UTC’s
Plaintiffs argue that UTC has not met the standard for reconsideration, stating that the
Special Master applied the proper law and that there is no newly discovered evidence. Plaintiffs
further argue that Dr. Rothblatt has relevant information and that any burden is proportional to
the needs of the case.
Reconsideration is appropriate only to rectify plain errors of law or where there is newly
discovered evidence that might alter the prior ruling. Palladino v. Governor of Pa., 589 F.
App’x 61 (3d Cir. 2014). The Special Master is not convinced that reconsideration is warranted
Rule 26 is the proper standard under which to analyze a request to add a document
The Special Master applied the aforesaid standard in determining that the addition of Dr.
Rothblatt as a document custodian seeks relevant information, is proportional to the needs of the
case and is not cumulative. As Plaintiffs point out in their response, when asked by the Special
Master during the December 2, 2020 status conference how many of the 76,000 documents to be
reviewed were documents from Dr. Rothblatt’s files, counsel for UTC indicated that only a small
percentage were from Dr. Rothblatt. The Special Master is not persuaded that there is any new
Case 3:19-cv-10170-BRM-LHG Document 267 Filed 01/07/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 12220
evidence here that would warrant reconsideration. The remaining arguments seek to re-litigate
the issues that have previously been determined.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, it is on this 18th day of December 2020,
ORDERED that UTC’s request for reconsideration of the Special Master’s November 16,
2020 Opinion and Order is denied.
__/s/ Jose L. Linares_______________________
Hon. Jose L. Linares, U.S.D.J. (Ret.)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?