IN RE NAMENDA INDIRECT PURCHASER ANTITRUST LITIGATION

Filing 322

ORDER terminating #316 Letter Motion to Compel. This Order addresses the parties' disagreement about the extent to which Plaintiff may pursue additional depositions. (See Dkt. 316, 320, 321.) As noted by Defendants, the stipulation and order regarding use of evidence from other actions bars deposition examination of either previously-deposed or new witnesses about topics for which there has been prior testimony in either the NYAG Action or OPP Action. (Dkt. 206 at No. 3.) That said, the stipulation and order is not as restrictive as Defendants make it out to be. Accordingly: 1. Plaintiff must identify with greater particularity the deposition topics it intends to pursue for each proposed deponent and in a way that explains why the testimony sought is non-duplicative. 2. The Court finds sufficient Plaintiff's explanation for deposing witnesses Burchard and Solomon provided in Dkt. 321. This disclosure also shows that Plaintiff can provide adequate description to Defendants without the need for in camera review at this juncture. 3. By December 23, 2019, Plaintiff shall provide Defendants with an updated disclosure. To the extent Defendants continue to object, they shall provide a written response to Plaintiff by December 30, 2019. By January 7, 2020, the parties shall then meet and confer in person. If any disputes remain, then by January 10, 2020, Plaintiff shall apprise the Court by letter. Defendants may respond by letter no later than January 14, 2020, as further set forth in this Order. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 12/16/2019) (mml)