IN RE NAMENDA INDIRECT PURCHASER ANTITRUST LITIGATION

Filing 359

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' LETTER MOTION TO COMPEL: The IPPs have until April 24 to retain their experts and submit expert reports. If defense counsel believe that it is necessary to obtain supplemental reports from their experts after receiving the IPP expert reports (and after the phone conference, I have every reason to believe that they will), those supplemental reports must be provided no later than June 12. Expert depositions must be completed by July 31. Motions for summary judgment and Daubert motions must be submitted by September 11. Oppositions to motions for summary judgment and Daubert motions must be submitted by October 9. Reply briefs in further support of motions for summary judgment and Daubert motions must be submitted by October 23. SO ORDERED. (Deposition due by 7/31/2020. Motions due by 9/11/2020. Responses due by 10/9/2020. Replies due by 10/23/2020.) (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 1/17/2020) (mml)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
___________________________________________
IN RE NAMENDA INDIRECT PURCHASER
LITIGATION

15 Civ. 6549 (CM)

___________________________________________
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ LETTER MOTION TO COMPEL
McMahon, C.J.:
On January 13, 2020, the court held a telephone conference with counsel for the plaintiffs
in the Direct Purchaser case (In re Namenda Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, No. 15-cv7488) and in this case (the Indirect Purchaser or “IPP” Case) – but not with counsel for
defendants – to resolve a dispute between these two groups of plaintiffs concerning whether the
certain experts retained by the Director Purchaser Plaintiffs in the Direct Purchaser case – whose
reports were submitted to the court, and with which the court was familiar – could be retained by
the plaintiffs in the IPP Case to testify regarding the same or similar issues. It had been my hope
that we could cut both time and cost by using expert reports with which the court was already
familiar, and which addressed issues that will certainly come up during the prosecution of the
IPP Case. However, several of those experts refused to entertain retention by the IPP Case
Plaintiffs, reportedly at the insistence of DPP counsel.
After listening to the parties, I am convinced that by the DPP counsel that certain
differences between the DPP’s theory of their case and the IPP’s theory (particularly insofar as
the IPPs have sued generics, which the DPPs did not) would make it impossible to re-use the
expert reports from the Direct Purchaser Case in this case, and difficult for the same experts to
testify in both cases. I cannot be more specific without divulging information protected as work
product, which was discussed during the conference (and which is why the conference had to be
held ex parte).
That, of course, alters the schedule.
The IPPs have until April 24 to retain their experts and submit expert reports.
If defense counsel believe that it is necessary to obtain supplemental reports from their
experts after receiving the IPP expert reports (and after the phone conference, I have every
reason to believe that they will), those supplemental reports must be provided no later than June
12.
Expert depositions must be completed by July 31.
Motions for summary judgment and Daubert motions must be submitted by September
11.
1

Oppositions to motions for summary judgment and Daubert motions must be submitted
by October 9.
Reply briefs in further support of motions for summary judgment and Daubert motions
must be submitted by October 23.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17, 2020

_________________________________
Chief Judge
BY ECF TO ALL PARTIES

2