Burt v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation

Filing 172

Case Management Order III: The pending summary judgment and Daubert motions filed in the Middle District of Tennessee are deemed moot. Defendant shall re-file these motions in this district by 8/23/2013. Plaintiffs shall re-file their responses to these motions by 9/13/2013.(BG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION
Mavis Burt,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER III

Case No. 1:12-cv-128

This case was originally filed in the Southern District of New York, moved to the Middle
District of Tennessee for review by the MDL Court, and then transferred to this district for trial.
While this case was still pending before the MDL Court, Defendant Novartis Pharmaceuticals
Corporation ("Novartis") filed summary judgment and Daubert motions, a number of which are still
pending.1 At this court’s direction, the parties have submitted a list of the pending motions and their
corresponding MDL docket numbers.
Although the pending motions were filed in the Middle District of Tennessee, it is this court
that is tasked with disposing of them. For this court’s convenience and to ensure that the issues
raised by the parties are preserved in the record in this district, the court is inclined to require the
parties to re-file in this district their motions, supporting briefs, and briefs in opposition.
Accordingly, the pending summary judgment and Daubert motions filed by Novartis in the
Middle District of Tennessee are deemed MOOT. Novartis shall re-file these motions and
supporting briefs in this district by August 23, 2013. Plaintiff shall re-file her responsive briefs to

1

These motions are located only on the Middle District of Tennessee’s docket and have not been
transferred to this district.

1

Novartis’ motions by September 13, 2013. Statements of fact and any orders issued by the MDL
panel in conjunction with these motions should be filed as attachments to the parties’ respective
briefs. The re-filed motions and briefs should be updated to: (1) reflect the caption and case number
assigned to this matter in this district; (2) address Eighth Circuit case law where applicable; and (3)
advise the court of any material developments that may have occurred since the motions were first
filed in the Middle District of Tennessee.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 19th day of July, 2013.
/s/ Charles S. Miller, Jr.
Charles S. Miller, Jr., Magistrate Judge
United States District Court

2