`
`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA Document 133 Filed 07/15/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 3814
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`July 15, 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,
`
`This letter is submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff, Monib Zirvi, M.D., in response to the
`request by counsel for Defendants Thermo Fisher Scientific, Rip Finst, and Sean Boyle, as
`outlined in their letter dated July 12, 2024.
`
`While we understand the logistical challenges and obligations of Mr. Finst and Mr. Boyle,
`we believe their in-person attendance at the settlement conference set for July 31, 2024, is
`crucial. Their direct involvement and participation are necessary to address specific issues
`and facilitate meaningful settlement discussions.
`
`Thermo Fisher's request to have Defendants Mr. Finst and Mr. Boyle excused from in-
`person attendance, or permitted to attend telephonically, could potentially hamper the
`Parties' efforts. Rip Finst and Sean Boyle were both attorneys of record in the Cornell
`litigation presumably representing the interest of Plaintiff as an inventor. Plaintiff alleges
`that Mr. Finst and Mr. Boyle failed to advise and protect his interest in the Cornell
`litigation resulting in a settlement agreement that Plaintiff has never seen and damages
`of grossly underpaid royalties in 2019. Plaintiff further alleged that Mr. Finst and Mr.
`Boyle actions were in concert with several other Defendants causing damages to the
`Plaintiff from the gross underpayment of royalties in 2019.
`
`The settlement conference is a critical opportunity for all parties to engage directly,
`address specific concerns, and work towards a resolution. The physical presence of all key
`individuals can enhance communication, ensure immediate feedback, and facilitate a more
`comprehensive understanding of the issues at hand.
`
`
`LORIUM LAW
`
`ATLANTA BOCA RATON CHICAGO FT. LAUDERDALE
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA Document 133 Filed 07/15/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 3815
`
`Given that Mr. Finst and Mr. Boyle have substantial knowledge and direct involvement in
`the matters under dispute, their absence could limit the effectiveness of the discussions.
`While outside counsel and a representative from Thermo Fisher's legal department can
`represent their interests, the firsthand perspectives and immediate decision-making
`capabilities of Mr. Finst and Mr. Boyle, as individual Defendants, is vital for a productive
`and efficient conference.
`
`Plaintiff has been unable to find any case where in person attendance was waived for
`inconvenience. The standard for not attending should be undue hardship. Consequently,
`Plaintiff respectfully requests that Defendants Mr. Finst and Mr. Boyle be required to
`attend the conference in person and comply with all other conditions contained in the Order
`scheduling the settlement conference.
`
`Thank you for your attention to this matter.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`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.

HTTP Error 500: Internal Server Error

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket