Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Limited v. The Trizetto Group, Inc. et al

Filing 896

ORDER: It is ORDERED that Plaintiffs/Counterclaim-Defendants Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Limited and Syntel, Inc.'s (together, "Syntel") evidentiary objections to the following trial exhibits of Defendants/Counterclaim-Plaint iffs The TriZetto Group, Inc. and Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp. (together, "TriZetto") are overruled for substantially the reasons stated by TriZetto: DTX-0256.002; DTX-0258.0009 to.0028; DTX-0275; DTX-0277. It is further ORDERED tha t Syntel's evidentiary objections to the following TriZetto trial exhibits are sustained for substantially the reasons stated by Syntel: DTX-0485; DTX-0490; DTX-0491. It is further ORDERED that for the reasons stated at today's telephonic s tatus conference, the following Syntel trial exhibits are admitted: PTX-199-200; PTX 205; PTX 206; PTX 685. Accordingly, TriZetto's motion in limine No. 6 (Dkt. No. 710) and application maintaining the objections to the transition rebates eviden ce (Dkt. No. 890) are DENIED. It is further ORDERED that by end of today, the parties shall meet and confer on the stipulation to moot Syntel's breach of contract claim regarding transition rebates and shall file a jointly proposed stipulation o f facts. The stipulation may reference the date TriZetto agreed to pay and the date of payment. Assuming TriZetto still wants to proceed, the parties shall submit today the proposed stipulation and any disputes about its precise wording, and the Cour t will rule on them. If TriZetto does not wish to proceed on these terms, it shall file a letter with the Court immediately so stating. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to correct the docket entry at Dkt. No. 864, which incorrectly states that the motion in limine at Dkt. No. 710 was granted. Instead, the docket entry should read "ORDER (Defendants' MIL 6) regarding 710 Motion in Limine." (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 10/16/2020) (ama)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------X
:
SYNTEL STERLING BEST SHORES
:
:
MAURITIUS LIMITED, et al.,
:
Plaintiffs/Counterclaim-Defendants, :
:
-against:
:
THE TRIZETTO GROUP, et al.,
:
:
Defendants/Counterclaim-Plaintiffs. :
------------------------------------------------------------ X

15 Civ. 211 (LGS)
ORDER

LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge:
It is ORDERED that Plaintiffs/Counterclaim-Defendants Syntel Sterling Best Shores
Mauritius Limited and Syntel, Inc.’s (together, “Syntel”) evidentiary objections to the following
trial exhibits of Defendants/Counterclaim-Plaintiffs The TriZetto Group, Inc. and Cognizant
Technology Solutions Corp. (together, “TriZetto”) are overruled for substantially the reasons
stated by TriZetto: DTX-0256.002; DTX-0258.0009 to .0028; DTX-0275; DTX-0277. It is
further
ORDERED that Syntel’s evidentiary objections to the following TriZetto trial exhibits
are sustained for substantially the reasons stated by Syntel: DTX-0485; DTX-0490; DTX-0491.
It is further
ORDERED that for the reasons stated at today’s telephonic status conference, the
following Syntel trial exhibits are admitted: PTX-199-200; PTX 205; PTX 206; PTX 685.
Accordingly, TriZetto’s motion in limine No. 6 (Dkt. No. 710) and application maintaining the
objections to the transition rebates evidence (Dkt. No. 890) are DENIED. It is further

ORDERED that by end of today, the parties shall meet and confer on the stipulation to
moot Syntel’s breach of contract claim regarding transition rebates and shall file a jointly
proposed stipulation of facts. The stipulation may reference the date TriZetto agreed to pay and
the date of payment. Assuming TriZetto still wants to proceed, the parties shall submit today the
proposed stipulation and any disputes about its precise wording, and the Court will rule on them.
If TriZetto does not wish to proceed on these terms, it shall file a letter with the Court
immediately so stating.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to correct the docket entry at Dkt. No. 864,
which incorrectly states that the motion in limine at Dkt. No. 710 was granted. Instead, the
docket entry should read “ORDER (Defendants’ MIL 6) regarding 710 Motion in Limine.”

Dated: October 16, 2020
New York, New York

2