`
`1
`
` UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
` DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`_________________________________
`
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS
`INTERNATIONAL GmbH, et al.,
`
` Plaintiffs, Civil Action
` No. 18-cv-12029-ADB
`
`v.
`
`
`
` January 20, 2022
`
`ELI LILLY AND COMPANY,
`
`Defendant. Pages 1 to 22
`_________________________________
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF STATUS CONFERENCE
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE ALLISON D. BURROUGHS
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`JOAN M. DALY, RMR, CRR
`Official Court Reporter
`John J. Moakley U.S. Courthouse
`One Courthouse Way, Room 5507
`Boston, MA 02210
`joanmdaly62@gmail.com
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 258 Filed 01/26/22 Page 2 of 22
`
`2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
`
`Elaine Herrmann Blais
`Douglas J. Kline
`Eric T. Romeo
`Goodwin Procter, LLP
`100 Northern Avenue
`Boston, MA 02210
`617-570-1205
`Email: Eblais@goodwinlaw.com
`Email: Dkline@goodwinlaw.com
`Email: Eromeo@goodwinprocter.com
`
`
`FOR THE DEFENDANT:
`
`Andrea L. Martin
`Burns & Levinson LLP
`125 Summer Street
`Boston, MA 02110
`617-345-3000
`Email: Amartin@burnslev.com
`
`Ryan P. O'Quinn
`Emily R. Grabanski
`Finnegan LLP
`1875 Explorer Street, Suite 800
`Reston, VA 20190-6023
`(571) 203-2426
`Email: Oquinnr@finnegan.com
`Email: Emily.gabranski@finnegan.com
`
`
`
`ALSO PRESENT: Lori Wolfe, Teva Inhouse Counsel
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 258 Filed 01/26/22 Page 3 of 22
`
`3
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`(The following proceeding was held via Zoom
`
`Videoconferencing before the Honorable Allison D. Burroughs,
`
`United States District Judge, United States District Court,
`
`District of Massachusetts, on January 20, 2022.)
`
`THE CLERK: This is civil action 18-12029, Teva
`
`Pharmaceuticals versus Eli Lilly. Will counsel identify
`
`themselves for the record.
`
`MS. BLAIS: Good morning, Your Honor. This is
`
`Elaine Blais from Goodwin Procter on behalf of Teva. I have
`
`my colleague Eric Romeo and my partner Doug Kline may join us
`
`as well. We also have Lori Wolfe, in-house counsel at Teva.
`
`MS. MARTIN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Andrea
`
`Martin for the defendant Eli Lilly. With me is Ryan O'Quinn
`
`and Emily Grabanski.
`
`THE COURT: All right. I think that this meeting
`
`is being called at Lilly's request. So does Lilly want to
`
`start?
`
`MR. O'QUINN: Yes, Your Honor. Ryan O'Quinn on
`
`behalf of Lilly. Thank you so much for your time today. We
`
`appreciate the opportunity to hopefully short circuit what
`
`could be a more burdensome motion practice in front of Your
`
`Honor regarding this issue that has already been fully
`
`briefed.
`
`We received Your Honor's order of December 20 and
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 258 Filed 01/26/22 Page 4 of 22
`
`4
`
`read it with intent, and we endeavored to comply with it in
`
`good faith. We went back through our proposed amended
`
`pleading, and with a fine tooth comb we removed all
`
`references to individuals that your order said needed to be
`
`removed. And we cabined allegations directed to "the
`
`applicants generally" and where the facts supported them we
`
`directed them instead to the two individuals that the
`
`documentary evidence and the testimonial evidence supported.
`
`All we intended to do and all we want to do is
`
`comply with the order in good faith. So hopefully today's
`
`conference can get a little bit of guidance from you as to
`
`the degree in which our proposed amended pleading needed to
`
`be amended in order to conform with your order.
`
`THE COURT: Mr. O'Quinn, I feel like we are ships
`
`passing in the night here, and it may have been my fault. We
`
`are where we are, but it was our intention that you guys
`
`would just file the drafted amended answer that was filed
`
`with 176, ECF 176. We were sort of eliminating causes of
`
`action and not thinking that you'd do a line edit of the
`
`amended complaint. So we thought we'd be living with 176 and
`
`were surprised to see 238.
`
`MR. O'QUINN: I think, Your Honor, I am not sure
`
`how the causes of action could be parsed out. I thought we
`
`had read your order that the answer at 176 was granted leave
`
`to file but needed to be amended to remove the nonspecific
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 258 Filed 01/26/22 Page 5 of 22
`
`5
`
`arguments to Mr. Giering and to the applicants generally.
`
`The applicants contains the two other individuals. I'm
`
`hesitant to name their names because those are confidential
`
`information that Teva has asked to redact, but we understood
`
`Your Honor's order to hold that the cause of action for
`
`inequitable conduct had met the standards of Rule 15, 16, and
`
`9B and simply it was basically for a more clear statement.
`
`THE COURT: I have to say, again I'm not sure we
`
`had a great meeting of the minds here, but we were surprised
`
`to see 238 which seems like a total revamp, which was not
`
`what we had intended or really allowed.
`
`MR. O'QUINN: I can understand that, Your Honor,
`
`and I apologize for the misunderstanding. We didn't feel
`
`like that was a wholesale revamp. We narrowed the scope of
`
`176 and 238 to we thought obey the Court's order in terms of
`
`wording. If we're mistaken, we certainly can do that. It
`
`didn't seem like there was an easy way for us to kind of
`
`split the baby and carve out references to the applicants
`
`while still keeping the necessary pleadings to meet the
`
`standard of Rule 9B.
`
`So that's why we wanted your guidance rather than
`
`going through another round of motion to strike briefing or
`
`motion for leave to amend briefing. And again we apologize.
`
`All we want to do is conform with your order.
`
`THE COURT: Ms. Blais, or whoever, what does Teva
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 258 Filed 01/26/22 Page 6 of 22
`
`6
`
`have to say on the subject?
`
`MS. BLAIS: Thank you, Your Honor. Look,
`
`inequitable conduct has to be pled with particularity. It
`
`was clear from the motion to amend that Lilly sought to add
`
`the allegations set out in its proposed amended answer which
`
`they refer to in their motion itself which was attached as
`
`Exhibit A. We briefed our opposition to the motion to amend
`
`based on the particular allegations from that Exhibit A.
`
`THE COURT: You're talking about 176, right?
`
`MS. BLAIS: 176, correct. We made an argument
`
`about timeliness. But then on substance we made three
`
`primary arguments. The first one was the allegations made
`
`generally against applicants didn't meet the pleading
`
`standard. We made the point that it was not fair to read
`
`applicants as being limited to the named inventors. Your
`
`Honor agreed with us on that saying that the argument that
`
`applicants could be read to mean the named inventor strained
`
`credulity in context. And we briefed the merits on that
`
`basis.
`
`We also asked you to disregard the allegations --
`
`I'm sorry. Was there a question? No. Okay. We also asked
`
`you to disregard the allegations that were made on
`
`information and belief because fact discovery was closed.
`
`And then we said putting aside those allegations, let's
`
`address the specific allegations made against the three
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 258 Filed 01/26/22 Page 7 of 22
`
`7
`
`individuals. That's how we briefed it, and that is how we
`
`read your order to follow.
`
`You specifically found, as I mentioned, that
`
`applicants could not be read to be limited to the named
`
`inventors, that that's strained credulity. That the
`
`allegations against applicants did not meet the pleading
`
`standard. And that when you stripped those away, you looked
`
`at the remaining factual allegations against the three
`
`individuals. You determined that the allegations against the
`
`prosecuting attorney did not meet the standard, but that the
`
`remaining specific allegations against the two inventors did.
`
`And specifically you ordered that leave was
`
`granted, but except to the extent that the inequitable
`
`conduct claims relied on the prosecuting attorney's June '13
`
`statement or made allegations generally about the applicant.
`
`So we were also very surprised to see a new answer which is
`
`not the answer that they sought leave to file.
`
`We were surprised and we were honestly quite
`
`disappointed because we asked them to share with us what they
`
`planned to file before they filed it, and they refused. So
`
`we got this answer. We ran a redline. The differences are
`
`vast, and they are substantive. So they may say that
`
`applicants clearly included the inventors, but it was broader
`
`than that.
`
`So the original answer when it made allegations
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 258 Filed 01/26/22 Page 8 of 22
`
`8
`
`about knowledge, intent, statements that were made, they were
`
`made about a large group that included multiple companies,
`
`multiple prosecuting firms as well as the inventors. We did
`
`not brief an amendment that was specific to the inventors on
`
`every allegation that was broadly made to the applicants.
`
`And our briefing would have been different if the allegations
`
`had been what are now in their answer.
`
`This matters because again inequitable conduct must
`
`be pled with particularity. The pleading lays out what is in
`
`the case. And so to suddenly have the pleading be different,
`
`it changes the parameters of what is in the case. It changes
`
`what we do on appeal. It has all sorts of ramifications. So
`
`we think they should not be allowed to change the allegations
`
`against applicants to be specific to the inventors without
`
`moving to amend to do so.
`
`And we think in particular that what they've done
`
`with the statement from the prosecuting attorney, which you
`
`said they could not rely on that prosecuting attorney's June
`
`2013 statement, we think what they've done there is
`
`particularly egregious.
`
`And if I may take one moment, I will point out what
`
`paragraph that is. It's paragraph 260. They are still
`
`relying on that statement, but they have now pointed the
`
`finger at the two inventors and said that they through their
`
`representative made this statement that they allege was
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 258 Filed 01/26/22 Page 9 of 22
`
`9
`
`inequitable conduct. That's a very different allegation than
`
`the allegation they made the first time or that we briefed.
`
`THE COURT: I have to say, and I'm not going to
`
`cast blame about this. I can sort of see how this happened,
`
`like how there was a misunderstanding about what we had
`
`intended. But what we had intended is much more in line with
`
`what Teva is now describing. But we are where we are, and
`
`I'm wondering what we should now do about it.
`
`MR. O'QUINN: Can I respond briefly, Your Honor?
`
`THE COURT: You can. There's nothing pending now.
`
`There's no motion. So there's nothing --
`
`MR. O'QUINN: We stipulated that the revised
`
`pleading -- that Teva's deadline to answer was pegged to the
`
`resolution of this dispute. So there's no clock ticking per
`
`se, and so we have solved this.
`
`THE COURT: 238 can't stand. It just can't the way
`
`it is. It's just nothing that we had ever anticipated. It's
`
`way different than what was in 176, which is what we were
`
`looking at. I'm not even sure what the options are here. I
`
`guess that we could have Lilly file a new motion to amend and
`
`do this again.
`
`I'm not sure what other options there are at this
`
`point because -- I guess where we had thought 176 would be
`
`the operative answer, I take Lilly's point about why that
`
`might not make the most amount of sense either. I'm not a
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 258 Filed 01/26/22 Page 10 of 22
`
`10
`
`patent lawyer. So let me hear from you guys about where you
`
`think we should go from here.
`
`MS. BLAIS: Let me take that. Because I think I
`
`agree that 176 should not be the operative pleading because
`
`the allegations against applicants were not pled with
`
`particularity and are not in the case. And the allegation
`
`regarding the prosecuting attorney's statement didn't meet
`
`the pleading standards and isn't in the case.
`
`So I tend to agree that that pleading not be the
`
`operative pleading because it confuses things going forward.
`
`Our solution was to strike the statements that did not meet
`
`the pleading standard. We still think that's the appropriate
`
`answer. And if Lilly wants to file something else, they
`
`should file a second motion to amend.
`
`We're obviously not enthused about having to brief
`
`another one as we'd like to get to trial in this case. But
`
`if they want to change the allegations, I think the rules are
`
`they have to file a motion to amend and we have to again
`
`address timeliness, which now we're even farther down the
`
`road. And we have to address futility.
`
`THE COURT: I take your point on timeliness, but I
`
`am sort of inclined to chalk this up to a misunderstanding
`
`and not devious conduct on the part of anybody.
`
`MS. BLAIS: I understand that, Your Honor. May I
`
`address it for one moment?
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 258 Filed 01/26/22 Page 11 of 22
`
`11
`
`THE COURT: Let me give you a couple of things to
`
`address. Just as a practical matter, I don't think we're
`
`going to trial on this any time soon. We just shut down
`
`trials for yet another week. I think I'm fully booked
`
`through the summer. So we do have some time to get this
`
`properly put together for the most efficient trial possible.
`
`But go ahead, Ms. Blais. Over to you.
`
`MS. BLAIS: Sure. What I would say on timeliness
`
`is I don't tie my timeliness argument to any allegation that
`
`they did something purposely wrong, but they made the choice
`
`to file allegations against applicants. They did that in
`
`October. That was a choice that they made, and that choice
`
`has consequences. Now in December, even if we give them the
`
`benefit of the filing they made in December and say that it
`
`was a mistake, it's still nearly three months later.
`
`And that matters as we are nearly finished with
`
`expert discovery. We're finishing expert depositions on
`
`February 1. We've had 13 expert depositions to take of
`
`defendant, and we're almost done with them. Then we're
`
`moving to summary judgment. So changing this, it has
`
`consequences. It has consequences for the shape of the case
`
`and for what we spend on this case and where we spend our
`
`efforts. That's why I raised the timeliness point. Even if
`
`they did it in good faith, it's still three months later and
`
`three months farther into the case.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 258 Filed 01/26/22 Page 12 of 22
`
`12
`
`THE COURT: I'm sort of envisioning an answer,
`
`again this is not my -- it's not my area of expertise. I'm
`
`going to be honest about that. I am envisioning an answer
`
`that is a subset of 176, not an expansion of it.
`
`MR. O'QUINN: Your Honor, can I speak to that
`
`briefly?
`
`THE COURT: I'm not sure it should really affect
`
`your expert discovery. Mr. O'Quinn is going to tell me why
`
`I'm wrong on that.
`
`MR. O'QUINN: I believe you're right. 238 in our
`
`view was a subset of 176. It is narrower in different
`
`respects. To the timeliness point, I feel like the clock
`
`stopped for purpose of good cause timeliness when the motion
`
`was filed and when the motion was granted. I don't think we
`
`can be dinged for that in perpetuity thereafter.
`
`There is no trial date set in this case. The only
`
`date that's pushing up on is the date for dispositive motion
`
`briefing. If we're going to need to do this again, I think
`
`we'll have to move those dates, like you said, to get this
`
`right and get it properly put together.
`
`Like I said, I apologize for the misunderstanding
`
`on our part, but Teva's position seems to be that anywhere
`
`that they control-F in their document and find the words
`
`applicants or Giering, that entire paragraph has to be
`
`stricken. I just don't think that can be what Your Honor
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 258 Filed 01/26/22 Page 13 of 22
`
`13
`
`intended. Particularly because some of the paragraphs that
`
`Teva proposes to cite are paragraphs that Your Honor credited
`
`in the December 20 order. We're at kind of two extremes
`
`here. Neither of them can really be correct. So that's why
`
`we are here kind of seeking some guidance of what to do
`
`instead.
`
`THE COURT: They hit control-F because they think
`
`that's what you did to replace applicants with those two
`
`names. So they are just trying to undo what you did.
`
`MR. O'QUINN: That's fair. There are multiple
`
`sentences and multiple factual allegations and citations in
`
`those paragraphs. The presence of the word applicants does
`
`not magically mean that that entire paragraph and everything
`
`it stands for should disappear. At least that's not how we
`
`interpret it. Apologies if we misinterpreted.
`
`THE COURT: I'd have to really go back and parse
`
`through and see if every mention of applicants needs to be
`
`stripped away. My suspicion is, Mr. O'Quinn, that you're
`
`right, and that not every one needs to be stripped away. But
`
`I don't have it in front of me, and I haven't looked at it in
`
`that way.
`
`MR. O'QUINN: Teva has proposed a redline, Your
`
`Honor, of number 176. Maybe the way forward is we use that
`
`as a starting point and Teva and Lilly can negotiate from
`
`Teva's proposed redline. I think that can narrow the scope
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 258 Filed 01/26/22 Page 14 of 22
`
`14
`
`of any potential disputes, and we can go from there and
`
`hopefully not need to do any further motions or conferences.
`
`THE COURT: It's pretty clear to me that we need a
`
`new answer. What if I decide that you've made a motion to
`
`file a new answer and I grant the motion, and then you guys
`
`hopefully come to some kind of meeting of the minds on an
`
`appropriate answer. And if you can't, we'll start from
`
`there. Does that make sense?
`
`MR. O'QUINN: That works for us.
`
`MS. BLAIS: Just so I understand. I think it is a
`
`good idea to start with what we attached as Exhibit B to our
`
`letter which was our attempt to comply, to indicate what we
`
`think you meant in the order. We're all just trying to
`
`figure this out.
`
`We could meet and confer about what we have
`
`stricken. And if there are disputes about any of the
`
`language that we're unable to resolve, we can bring it back
`
`to you for consideration. Does that work?
`
`THE COURT: That works. In another case I just
`
`issued an order saying no more letters, for now on everything
`
`had to be done by motion or by letter two pages or under. If
`
`you guys have -- I'm not going to do that here. If you can
`
`bring those things to my attention in the form of a letter or
`
`something less than an formal motion practice, that's fine.
`
`It might be more efficient. Let's go with that. I'm going
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 258 Filed 01/26/22 Page 15 of 22
`
`15
`
`to presume that he's made a motion. The motion is granted.
`
`And we'll wait to have an amended answer filed. And then
`
`we'll see where we are.
`
`MS. BLAIS: Your Honor, may I ask you about the
`
`trial date? You said you're booked through the summer. I
`
`wonder would it be possible for us to get on your calendar,
`
`even if it's not until the fall, like we have something that
`
`we're actually shooting for?
`
`THE COURT: Yes. I sort of have different pieces
`
`of paper on which I had my trial schedule, and I left my
`
`master calendar at home. And I have an almost master
`
`calendar that we can look at if you want. Karen, you're
`
`going to have to help me because I'm missing the fall dates.
`
`THE CLERK: Okay.
`
`THE COURT: How long a trial are you envisioning?
`
`MS. BLAIS: We think it's probably two weeks. Do
`
`you do 9 to noon?
`
`THE COURT: Full days.
`
`MS. BLAIS: Full days. We still think it's
`
`probably two weeks. We have 13 experts between us in
`
`addition to five inventors and a number of fact witnesses.
`
`MR. O'QUINN: We will need probably some amount for
`
`a bench trial on two different counterclaims we have now for
`
`inequitable conduct. Probably for the convenience of the
`
`parties and witnesses we would want that to be contiguous
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 258 Filed 01/26/22 Page 16 of 22
`
`16
`
`with the jury trial so the witnesses don't have to travel
`
`twice. That would probably be two or three days depending on
`
`what stays in the case.
`
`THE COURT: So let's say three weeks all in
`
`counting jury selection. Realistically, and I don't want to
`
`go through a million dates, when do you think the summary
`
`judgment motions will be fully briefed?
`
`MS. BLAIS: The current schedule has them fully
`
`briefed by March 31.
`
`THE COURT: But that's going to slip, right?
`
`MR. O'QUINN: Potentially.
`
`MS. BLAIS: We haven't discussed it. It's
`
`certainly our intention to keep to the date as of this
`
`moment.
`
`MR. O'QUINN: I think Lilly doesn't think it would
`
`be appropriate to go through summary judgment briefing with
`
`allegations not answered or moved in the case.
`
`THE COURT: It might make it easier. If you file
`
`those say the end of March, I guess we could theoretically be
`
`ready for a fall trial. Karen, when do we have three weeks
`
`after Labor Day?
`
`THE CLERK: Looks like September 26. If we're
`
`doing Tuesday impanelments, the 27th. That's the last week
`
`in September and the first two weeks in October.
`
`THE COURT: Hold on a minute.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 258 Filed 01/26/22 Page 17 of 22
`
`17
`
`THE CLERK: All of October is free it looks like.
`
`THE COURT: You guys can pick. I think I'm booked
`
`until September, but I think I'm guessing that. My guess is
`
`from September 27 on we're pretty open.
`
`THE CLERK: We are.
`
`THE COURT: Do you want to pick your three weeks?
`
`Don't forget in there is -- the week of October 4 we're going
`
`to lose a day for Yom Kippur. The next week we'll lose a day
`
`for Columbus Day. Karen, I think we lose September 26 for
`
`Rosh Hashanah, right?
`
`THE CLERK: It's not listed on the calendar right
`
`now.
`
`THE COURT: My guess we don't impanel to the 28th.
`
`THE CLERK: The 26th is Monday.
`
`THE COURT: I'll lose that day, but not everybody
`
`will. You're saying we can still impanel on the 27th?
`
`THE CLERK: Yes.
`
`THE COURT: Do you guys want to confer on this and
`
`let me know which three weeks you want, or do you want to
`
`pick one now?
`
`MS. BLAIS: I think, Your Honor, conferring about
`
`it probably is the best thing with the agreement that we will
`
`find dates starting in September 27, and I think Karen said
`
`you have all of October open.
`
`THE CLERK: November looks like it's available,
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 258 Filed 01/26/22 Page 18 of 22
`
`18
`
`too.
`
`MS. BLAIS: Okay.
`
`THE COURT: I'm booking seriatim through the week.
`
`So we've gone through September.
`
`MS. BLAIS: Okay. We'll get back to you. Let's
`
`try to get back to you tomorrow if we possibly can so we can
`
`snag that time, but we'll confer with each other and our
`
`clients and get back to you.
`
`THE COURT: The only thing I'm going to also say is
`
`the last three weeks I've had to boot trials forward.
`
`Everything is going to slide forward a little bit. So you
`
`may want to give me a little wiggle room at the end of
`
`September for criminal cases that need to be tried.
`
`MS. BLAIS: Understood.
`
`THE COURT: But whatever three weeks you pick,
`
`including that last week of September, we'll try and hold
`
`them for you.
`
`MS. BLAIS: Okay. Terrific.
`
`THE COURT: Actually. I have a better idea. Pick
`
`four weeks in September. Then I'll pull a week at the front
`
`or the back depending on how everything else looks, and then
`
`we'll hold you to your dates.
`
`MS. BLAIS: I think there are only four weeks in
`
`October.
`
`THE COURT: From that last week in September
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 258 Filed 01/26/22 Page 19 of 22
`
`19
`
`through November find a chunk of four weeks. Just understand
`
`that I may chop the first and last one. Everybody can keep
`
`their schedules free for a month and we'll use three of the
`
`four weeks.
`
`Mr. O'Quinn, I'm assuming what you're suggesting
`
`is -- you're suggesting that the jury will rule on the counts
`
`that they're going to rule on, and we just -- all the
`
`evidence before them would only be called on to rule on
`
`certain counts. You're not talking about two separate
`
`proceedings, right?
`
`MR. O'QUINN: Well, inequitable conduct is a matter
`
`for you, Your Honor, not for the jury.
`
`THE COURT: I get it.
`
`MR. O'QUINN: There may be some overlap in
`
`evidence, but it's hard to tell right now. More than likely
`
`there will have to be at least some session just before Your
`
`Honor with separate evidence.
`
`MS. BLAIS: We definitely agree with that because
`
`some of this evidence, at least the way that they are
`
`spinning it, for lack of a better way, has the possibility of
`
`being fairly prejudicial in front of the jury. We're going
`
`to have to be careful about how we parse this.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Definitely pick four weeks. And
`
`that will give me some flex time, and it will give us some
`
`time on the unequitable conduct if we need it.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 258 Filed 01/26/22 Page 20 of 22
`
`20
`
`MR. O'QUINN: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`MS. BLAIS: Thank you.
`
`THE COURT: Just let us know. I'm continuing to
`
`schedule things just like I just scheduled this one. Let us
`
`know when you can.
`
`MS. BLAIS: We will.
`
`MR. O'QUINN: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`MS. BLAIS: Thank you very much.
`
`THE COURT: Do you need a deadline on the amended
`
`answer, or can I just count on you to work prudently but
`
`expeditiously?
`
`MR. O'QUINN: I think we will work prudently and
`
`expeditiously.
`
`MS. MARTIN: Your Honor, do we want to try to get a
`
`summary judgment hearing set, or is that premature?
`
`THE COURT: That's premature, Ms. Martin.
`
`MS. MARTIN: While we're making dates.
`
`THE COURT: I only have summary judgment hearings
`
`when I think they're going to be helpful. And you'll be
`
`shocked to know that I don't always find you people helpful.
`
`If we feel like we need a hearing, we'll schedule it. I
`
`don't schedule them in everything as a matter of course,
`
`particularly during COVID. I just don't like to do them
`
`unless we need them.
`
`MS. MARTIN: For the trial date is it best to just
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 258 Filed 01/26/22 Page 21 of 22
`
`21
`
`email Ms. Folan?
`
`THE COURT: That's fine. She'll let me know. All
`
`right?
`
`MS. BLAIS: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: If there's nothing else for today, the
`
`case is recessed. Thanks, everyone.
`
`(Court recessed at 1:29 p.m.)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 258 Filed 01/26/22 Page 22 of 22
`
`22
`
`- - - - - - - - - - - -
`
`CERTIFICATION
`
`I certify that the foregoing is a correct
`
`transcript of the record of proceedings in the above-entitled
`
`matter to the best of my skill and ability.
`
`/s/ Joan M. Daly January 26, 2022
`
`______________________ ____________________
`
`Joan M. Daly, RMR, CRR Date
`Official Court Reporter
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`