`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 18-303-RGA
`
`
`
`
`)))))))))
`
`BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORPORATION,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`HOSPIRA, INC. and ORION CORP.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING ON
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE ANTITRUST CLAIMS IN BAXTER’S
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`WHEREAS, on October 12, 2018, Plaintiff Baxter Healthcare Corporation (“Plaintiff”)
`
`filed an unopposed Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (D.I. 54);
`
`
`
`WHEREAS, Baxter’s First Amended Complaint (the “Amended Complaint”) adds seven
`
`new counts, including antitrust claims, to this action and seeks a jury trial on all issues properly
`
`triable by a jury;
`
`WHEREAS, Defendants Hospira, Inc. and Orion Corp. (collectively “Defendants”) plan
`
`to file a motion to dismiss certain of the counts in the Amended Complaint (the “Motion to
`
`Dismiss”) and otherwise respond to the remaining claims in the Amended Complaint; and
`
`WHEREAS, subject to the approval of the Court, Plaintiff and Defendants have agreed to
`
`the following schedule for Defendants’ response to the Amended Complaint and for briefing on
`
`the Motion to Dismiss, which, subject to the Court’s approval, includes increased page limits.
`
`NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by Plaintiff and Defendants, subject
`
`to the approval of the Court, that the following schedule and page limits with respect to briefing
`
`shall apply to Defendants’ response to the Amending Complaint and briefing on the Motion to
`
`Dismiss:
`
`{05418752.DOCX.}
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00303-RGA Document 57 Filed 10/15/18 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 1268
`
`
`1.
`
`Defendants shall have 30 days from the date the Court grants Plaintiff’s unopposed
`
`Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (D.I. 54) to file the Motion to
`
`Dismiss and otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint. Defendants’ opening
`
`brief in support of the Motion to Dismiss shall not exceed 30 pages.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff’s answering brief in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss shall be filed
`
`within 30 days of the filing of the Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff’s answering brief
`
`in opposition to the motion to dismiss shall not exceed 30 pages.
`
`3.
`
`Defendants’ reply brief in support of the Motion to Dismiss shall be filed within 14
`
`days of the filing of Plaintiff’s answering brief and shall not exceed 15 pages.
`
`IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED by Plaintiff and Defendants that during the time period
`
`between the filing of the unopposed Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint and the
`
`Court’s granting of such motion, Plaintiff need not respond to Defendants’ First Amended
`
`Counterclaim (D.I. 52), which will become moot when the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to
`
`amend.
`
`{05418752.DOCX.}
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00303-RGA Document 57 Filed 10/15/18 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 1269
`
`
`
`
`Dated: October [ ], 2018
`
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`
`
`By: /s/ Philip A. Rovner
`
`Philip A. Rovner (#3215)
`Jonathan A. Choa (#5319)
`Alan R. Silverstein (#5066)
`Hercules Plaza
`P.O. Box 951
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 984-6000
`provner@potteranderson.com
`jchoa@potteranderson.com
`asilverstein@potteranderson.com
`
`
` Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`CONNOLLY GALLAGHER LLP
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Arthur G. Connolly
`Arthur G. Connolly, III (#2667)
`Ryan P. Newell (#4744)
`The Brandywine Building
`1000 West Street, Suite 1400
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 757-7300
`aconnolly@connollygallagher.com
`rnewell@connollygallagher.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`
`
`
`
`
`SO ORDERED this ____ day of October, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` ______________________________________
`THE HONORABLE RICHARD G. ANDREWS
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`
`
`{05418752.DOCX.}
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
