Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc. v. Inivata Ltd.
ORDER terminating 31 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery; granting 33 Letter Motion to Stay re: 31 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery [Expert] addressed to Judge Valerie E. Caproni f rom Adam K. Doerr dated 11/9/2021., 33 LETTER MOTION to Stay re: 32 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery, [Stay Expert Discovery] addressed to Judge Valerie E. Caproni from Joint - Adam K. Doerr and Theodo re Snyder dated November 16, 2021. Expert discovery in this matter is hereby STAYED. By no later than December 20, 2021, Defendant must inform the Court whether it believes expert discovery is needed to respond in opposition to the Motion for Summa ry Judgment and if so, on what basis. The Court will decide whether to lift the stay on expert discovery at that time. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the open motions at docket entries 31 and 33. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 11/16/21) (yv)
Case 1:21-cv-04211-VEC Document 34 Filed 11/16/21 Page 1 of 2
704.377.8114 : Direct Phone
704.339.3414 : Direct Fax
November 16, 2021
Hon. Valerie E. Caproni
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse
40 Foley Square
New York, New York 10007
Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc. v. Inivata Ltd.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-04211-VEC
Joint Letter Regarding Stay of Expert Discovery
Dear Judge Caproni:
Pursuant to Your Honor’s Order dated November 9, 2021 (ECF Doc. 32), the parties to
the above-captioned action jointly write to express their preference that the Court stay expert
discovery (as opposed to adjourn expert discovery) until it rules on Stifel’s anticipated motion for
Unless the parties resolve this dispute at mediation, Stifel will submit its motion for
summary judgment by no later than December 15, 2021 pursuant to the schedule previously set
by the Court. Inivata reserves the right to oppose Stifel’s motion on grounds that the case
presents a genuine dispute as to material facts, and that expert testimony would assist the
Court in resolving issues such as whether Stifel breached its engagement agreement by failing
to use commercially reasonable efforts on Inivata’s behalf. Stifel’s view is that expert testimony
is irrelevant to resolution of the summary judgment motion.
In the event that the Court denies Stifel’s motion for summary judgment, the parties
propose that they confer and submit a proposed schedule for resuming expert discovery within
15 days following the Court’s ruling.
Wherefore, the parties respectfully request that the Court stay expert discovery pending
mediation and resolution of Stifel’s anticipated motion for summary judgment.
_/s/ Theodore Snyder_____________
Attorney for Plaintiff Stifel,
Nicolaus & Company, Inc.
_/s/ Adam K. Doerr_________________
Adam K. Doerr
Attorney for Defendant Inivata Ltd.
ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A. : robinsonbradshaw.com
Charlotte Office : 101 N. Tryon St., Ste. 1900, Charlotte, NC 28246 : 704.377.2536
Case 1:21-cv-04211-VEC Document 34 Filed 11/16/21 Page 2 of 2
HON. VALERIE CAPRONI
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?