Treehouse Foods, Inc. et al v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. et al

Filing 170

ORDER in case 1:14-cv-00905-VSB; granting in part and denying in part (1412) Letter Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages; denying (1426) Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File in case 1:14-md-02542-VSB-SLC. Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDE RED that Defendant's motion for leave to file excess pages, (Doc. 1412), is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that I adopt, in part, the page limit proposal submitted by TreeHouse and the DPPs. (See Doc. 1413.) Plaintiffs and Keurig shall each have 115 pages for opening briefs, followed by 115 pages for responsive briefs and 50 pages for reply. In response to TreeHouse's and the DPPs' question, (id. at 3 n.5), I direct the Plaintiffs to file one large memor andum of law divided into sections. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' proposal to adjust the briefing schedule, (see Doc. 1413), is DENIED at this time. The parties are directed to meet and confer and submit a joint filing on or before Augu st 3, 2021, indicating whether the parties have agreed on any adjusted briefing schedule and, if not, the parties' respective positions on the briefing schedule. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's letter motion for an extension of time, (Doc. 1426), is DENIED at this time. I will entertain extension requests in the upcoming August 3, 2021 filing. The Clerk's office is directed to terminate the open motions at Documents 1412 and 1426. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 7/27/2021) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02542-VSB-SLC et al. (kv)

Download PDF
Case 1:14-cv-00905-VSB Document 170 Filed 07/27/21 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------- X : IN RE: KEURIG GREEN MOUNTAIN : : SINGLE-SERVE COFFEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION : : This Document Concerns All Related Actions : ---------------------------------------------------------- X 7/27/21 14-md-2542 (VSB) ORDER VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge: I am in receipt of Defendant’s letter motion for leave to file excess pages for their summary judgment motion, (Doc. 1412), as well as oppositions filed by Plaintiffs TreeHouse Foods, Inc., Bay Valley Foods, LLC, and Sturm Foods, Inc., (together, “TreeHouse”) and the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (the “DPPs”), (Doc. 1413), and JBR, Inc., (Doc. 1414). I am also in receipt of Defendant’s letter motion for an extension filed on July 26, 2021. (Doc. 1426.) Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for leave to file excess pages, (Doc. 1412), is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that I adopt, in part, the page limit proposal submitted by TreeHouse and the DPPs. (See Doc. 1413.) Plaintiffs and Keurig shall each have 115 pages for opening briefs, followed by 115 pages for responsive briefs and 50 pages for reply. In response to TreeHouse’s and the DPPs’ question, (id. at 3 n.5), I direct the Plaintiffs to file one large memorandum of law divided into sections. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ proposal to adjust the briefing schedule, (see Doc. 1413), is DENIED at this time. The parties are directed to meet and confer and submit a joint filing on or before August 3, 2021, indicating whether the parties have agreed on any adjusted briefing schedule and, if not, the parties’ respective positions on the briefing schedule. Case 1:14-cv-00905-VSB Document 170 Filed 07/27/21 Page 2 of 2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s letter motion for an extension of time, (Doc. 1426), is DENIED at this time. I will entertain extension requests in the upcoming August 3, 2021 filing. The Clerk’s office is directed to terminate the open motions at Documents 1412 and 1426. SO ORDERED. Dated: July 27, 2021 New York, New York ______________________ Vernon S. Broderick United States District Judge

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?