Merz North America, Inc. v. Cytophil, Inc.

Filing 253

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 212 Cytophil's Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Swank on 9/26/2017. (Foell, S.)

Download PDF
Merz North America, Inc. v. Cytophil, Inc. Cytophil v. Merz North America, Inc. Cytophil Cytophil see Cytophil, Inc. v Merz North America, Inc. 2 Eshelman v. Puma Biotech., Inc. EEOC v. Sheffield Fin., LLC inter alia 3 see generally Boykin Anchor Co., Inc. v. Wong 4 Pro Fit Mgmt., Inc. v. Lady of Am. Franchise Corp. converse, confer, compare views, consult and deliberate Id. 5 6 all refer 7 any any 8 See Cytophil See Cytophil, Inc. v. Merz North America, Inc. 9 Id. Id. See Cytophil, Inc. v. Merz North America, Inc. See North America, Inc. 10 Cytophil, Inc. v. Merz Columbus-America Discovery Group v. Atl. Mut. Ins. Co., 203 F.3d 291, 304 (4th Cir. 2000). Pretrial rulings, however, are always subject to reconsideration by the district court and thus are not necessarily barred by the court’s prior rulings. Lester v. City of Lafayette, Colo., 639 F. App'x 538, 542 (10th Cir. 2016) (whether to apply the law-of-the-case doctrine to discovery rulings is a discretionary matter). While the decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin does not operate as a bar to the discovery sought by Cytophil, Cytophil has not demonstrated any basis for reconsideration of Judge Adelman’s prior rulings. Accordingly, the court denies Cytophil’s motion to compel Merz to respond to Request Nos. 137-40. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Cytophil’s motion to compel [DE #212] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: 1. Merz shall provide Cytophil with samples of its Prolaryn Plus® and Radiesse® products sought by Request Nos. 120-21. Within ten (10) days of the date of this order, the parties shall meet and confer, in person or by telephone, in an effort to reach an agreement concerning the terms and conditions for Merz’s production of the samples. In the event the parties are unable to reach such an agreement through the meet-and-confer process, the parties shall request a discovery conference by filing a joint motion with the court advising the court of the general nature of any disputes, the efforts taken to resolve such disputes, and the need for the court’s involvement; 2. The court denies Cytophil’s requests to compel further responses to Request Nos. 63, 74-77, and 137-40; and 3. Due to the concerns expressed hereinabove concerning the parties’ efforts to resolve their disputes without court intervention and based upon the outcome of Cytophil’s motion, 11 12

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?