throbber
Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 28 Filed 08/01/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 686
`
`John W. Shaw
`I.M. Pei Building
`1105 North Market Street, 12th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 298-0700
`(302) 298-0701 – Direct
`jshaw@shawkeller.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`August 1, 2022
`
`
`BY CM/ECF
`
`The Honorable Mitchell S. Goldberg
`United States District Court
`Eastern District of Pennsylvania
`James A. Byrne U.S. Courthouse, Room 17614
`601 Market Street
`Philadelphia, PA 19106-1797
`
`
`Arbutus Biopharma Corporation, et al. v. Moderna, Inc., et al.,
`C.A. No. 22-252-MSG (D. Del.)
`
`
`
`Re:
`
`
`Dear Judge Goldberg:
`
`On July 20, 2022, Plaintiffs sent Defendants a draft proposed Scheduling Order (Exhibit
`A) and invited edits or discussion. Defendants declined to engage, citing their partial motion to
`dismiss as grounds for refusing to negotiate a schedule or proceed with discovery. See Exhibit
`B. Plaintiffs wrote Defendants again on July 28, 2022, and requested a Rule 26(f) conference.
`Defendants again refused, stating that they “see no need for a Rule 26(f) conference while
`Moderna’s motion is pending and before the Court has ordered a Rule 16 conference in light of
`the pending partial motion to dismiss.” See Exhibit B.
`
`Defendants’ unwillingness to hold a Rule 26(f) conference is improper under both
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f)(1)—which directs the parties to “confer as soon as
`practicable”—as well as under paragraph 2 of Your Honor’s Policies and Procedures guidelines
`regarding civil matters, which states that “[o]utstanding motions will not excuse counsel from
`timely holding” a Rule 26(f) conference “and submitting a Rule 26 plan.” See also Grape
`Technology Group Inc. et al. v. Jingle Networks Inc., No. 08-cv-00408-GMS, Doc. No. 18 (D.
`Del. Jan. 13, 2009) (directing that “parties are not precluded from commencing and engaging in
`discovery prior to the court noticing and/or conducting a Rule 16/Local Rule 16.2(b) scheduling
`conference”) (attached as Exbibit C).
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 28 Filed 08/01/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 687
`
`
`
`SHAW KELLER LLP
`Letter to the Honorable Mitchell S. Goldberg
`Page 2
`
`Given Defendants’ refusal to participate in the Rule 26(f) process, Plaintiffs respectfully
`request that Your Honor enter the attached Scheduling Order that Plaintiffs proposed (Exhibit A)
`or convene a Rule 16 conference.1
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ John W. Shaw
`
`John W. Shaw (No. 3362)
`
`Enclosure
`cc: Clerk of the Court (by CM/ECF and hand delivery)
`
` All counsel of record (by CM/ECF and email)
`
`
`
`1 Plaintiffs served their identification of the accused products and their damages model on July
`26 in accordance with this proposed schedule.
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket