Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA Document 128 Filed 06/28/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 3809
`
`
`
`Joseph D. Garrity, Esq.
`101 N.E. THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1800
`FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33301
`Main : (954) 462-8000
`Direct: (954) 331-1294
`Cell: (954) 821-7204
`www.loriumlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`June 28, 2024
`
`Hon. Jessica S. Allen, U.S.M.J.
`U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
`Martin Luther King Building & U.S. Courthouse
`50 Walnut Street
`Newark, NJ 07101
`
`Re: Zirvi v. Illumina, Inc., et al., 2:23-cv-01997 (MCA) (JSA)
`
`Dear Judge Allen,
`
`We acknowledge and respect the request made by Denise Alvarez on behalf of Defendants
`Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Matthew A. Pearson, Esq., and Angela Verrecchio,
`seeking permission for remote participation in the upcoming settlement conference
`scheduled for July 31, 2024.
`
`While we understand the logistical challenges posed by long-distance travel, we strongly
`believe that in-person attendance by all parties is critical for the effective and efficient
`resolution of this complex matter. In-person discussions facilitate better communication
`and understanding, which are essential for negotiating a comprehensive settlement. I
`attended a settlement conference in an unrelated case before this Court earlier this year
`that led to a successful settlement. In person mediation is well worth the inconvenience of
`traveling. I will be traveling from Fort Lauderdale, Florida and look forward to attending
`the settlement conference as required by the Court’s Order.
`
`The interrelationship of the parties and pending motion for reconsideration introduces
`potential new developments and complexities that could significantly impact the scope and
`dynamics of the settlement conference. Given this uncertainty, it is crucial that all parties
`are present in person to address any new issues promptly and thoroughly. The presence of
`key representatives in person has proven to be beneficial in facilitating effective
`negotiations and achieving resolutions and has been required in other cases.
`
`In support of our position, we reference the case of Nike, Inc. v. Eastern Ports Custom
`Brokers Inc., et al. (Case No. 2:11-cv-04390), where the court underscored the importance
`of having representatives with full settlement authority attend settlement conferences in
`person. Despite recognizing the logistical challenges faced by the defendants in that case,
`the court did not consider such challenges as sufficient to excuse non-compliance. The court
`
`LORIUM LAW
`
`
`
`ATLANTA BOCA RATON CHICAGO FT. LAUDERDALE
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA Document 128 Filed 06/28/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 3810
`
`emphasized that appropriate representation in person is crucial for meaningful settlement
`negotiations, a principle that should apply equally here.
`
`In the Nike case, the defendants faced significant travel challenges from China, yet the
`court required their in-person attendance to ensure effective participation. Akin Gump's
`hardship claim, involving domestic travel from California, does not meet the threshold of
`"extraordinary circumstances" that would justify remote participation.
`
`Given the complexity of this case and the pending motions, it is essential that all parties
`are present to address new developments comprehensively. Remote participation could
`impede effective negotiation and lead to further delays.
`
`WHEREFORE, we respectfully request that Akin Gump's request for remote participation
`be denied. As an alternative, Akin Gump may delegate a Partner from Philadelphia or
`New York City with full and actual settlement authority to attend in person without
`objection from the Plaintiff.
`
`We appreciate the Court’s consideration of this matter and look forward to a productive
`settlement conference.
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Joseph D. Garrity
`JOSEPH D. GARRITY, ESQ.
`Florida Bar No. 87531
`jgarrity@loriumlaw.com
`GLTService@loriumlaw.co
`
`LORIUM LAW
`Counsel for Plaintiff
`101 NE 3rd Ave, Ste 1800
`Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
`Telephone: (954) 462-8000
`Facsimile: (954) 462-4300
`
`
`EISENBERG, GOLD & AGRAWAL, P.C
`Amar Agrawal.
`Counsel for Plaintiff
`1040 Kings Hwy North, Ste 200
`Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
`Telephone: (856) 330-6200
`Facsimile: (856) 330-6207
`aagrawal@egalawfirm.com
`
`
`cc: All Counsel of Record (via CM/ECF)
`
`
`LORIUM LAW
`
`
`
`ATLANTA BOCA RATON CHICAGO FT. LAUDERDALE
`
`
`
`
`
`

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

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

Accept $ Charge

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.

We are unable to display this document.

PTO Denying Access

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket