Case 1:14-cv-02758-PAC Document 69-1 Filed 06/10/15 Page 1 of 14
`
`Kowa Company, Ltd. et al. v. Aurobindo Pharma Limited et al.,
`Civil Action No. 14-CV-2497 (PAC) (and related cases)
`
`
`
`Exhibit 6 to Supplemental Declaration of
`Thomas R. Burns, dated June 10, 2015, in
`support of Defendants’ Joint Responsive
`Claim Construction Brief
`
`
`
`
`
`Kowa Company, Ltd. et al. v. Aurobindo Pharma Limited et al.,
`Civil Action No. 14-CV-2497 (PAC) (and related cases)
`
`
`
`Exhibit 6 to Supplemental Declaration of
`Thomas R. Burns, dated June 10, 2015, in
`support of Defendants’ Joint Responsive
`Claim Construction Brief
`
`
`
`
`
` 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 1:14-cv-02758-PAC Document 69-1 Filed 06/10/15 Page 2 of 14
`Case 1:14-cv-02497-PAC Document 38 Filed 10/14/14 Page 1 of 42
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`------------------------------------X
` :
`KOWA CO., LTD., et al., :
` : 14-CV-2497
` Plaintiffs, :
` v. : 500 Pearl Street
` : New York, New York
`AUROBINDO PHARMA LTD., et al., :
` : October 6, 2014
` Defendants. :
`------------------------------------X
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF CIVIL CAUSE FOR INITIAL CONFERENCE
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE PAUL A. CROTTY
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`For the Plaintiffs:
`
`
`
`
`
`For Defendant/Mylan:
`
`ANTHONY VIOLA, ESQ.
`Edwards, Wildman & Palmer
`750 Lexington Avenue
`New York, New York 10022
`
`KATHLEEN CARR, ESQ.
`DAVID CONLIN, ESQ.
`ADAM SAMANSKY, ESQ.
`Edwards, Wildman & Palmer
`111 Huntington Avenue
`Boston, Massachusetts 02199
`
`DEANNE MAZZOCHI, ESQ.
`Rakoczy Molino Mazzochi Siwik LLP
`6 West Hubbard Street, Suite 500
`Chicago, Illinois 60654
`
`CONNIE HUTTNER, ESQ.
`Budd Larner
`260 Madison Avenue, 18th Floor
`New York, New York 10016
`
`(Appearances continue on next page.)
`
`
`
`Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording,
`transcript produced by transcription service
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-02758-PAC Document 69-1 Filed 06/10/15 Page 3 of 14
`Case 1:14-cv-02497-PAC Document 38 Filed 10/14/14 Page 2 of 42
`
`2
`
`APPEARANCES CONTINUED:
`
`For the Defendants:
`
`PAUL AINSWORTH, ESQ.
`CHANDRIKA VIRA, ESQ.
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox
`1110 New York Avenue
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`STEVE GERBER, ESQ.
`KATHERINE ROHLF, ESQ.
`Gonzalez, Saggio & Harlan
`292 Madison Avenue
`New York, New York 10017
`
`JAKOB HALPERN, ESQ.
`ARNIE KELLMAN, ESQ.
`Saiber LLC
`One Gateway Center, Suite 1000
`Newark, New Jersey 07102
`
`VINCENT RAO, ESQ.
`Kelley, Drye & Warren
`101 Park Avenue
`New York, New York 10178
`
`CRAIG SCOTT KESCH, ESQ.
`Flemming Zulack Williamson Zauderer
`One Liberty Plaza
`New York, New York 10006
`
`MICHAEL R. DZWONCZYK, ESQ.
`Sughrue Mion, PLLC
`2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20037
`
`Court Transcriber:
`
`
`
`SHARI RIEMER, CET-805
`TypeWrite Word Processing Service
`211 N. Milton Road
`Saratoga Springs, New York 12866
`
` 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 1:14-cv-02758-PAC Document 69-1 Filed 06/10/15 Page 4 of 14
`Case 1:14-cv-02497-PAC Document 38 Filed 10/14/14 Page 8 of 42
`
`8
`
`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
`
`MR. CONLIN: Well, if you want to discuss the details
`
`of the various disagreements and stuff I would ask my partner
`
`Kathleen Carr to talk to the court on those.
`
`THE COURT: Okay, Ms. Carr.
`
`MS. CARR: Thank you, Your Honor. I think we have
`
`some good news in that we’ve worked hard --
`
`THE COURT: We thrive on good news here. There’s not
`
`enough of it.
`
`MS. CARR: So we have managed to come to agreement
`
`with the defendants on many of the dates. So that’s -- that
`
`was some substantial progress and some substantial work
`
`involved to try to get there. So we have a general framework
`
`that I think is agreed upon and if I misspeak which I don’t
`
`intend to I welcome the defendants to point that out but --
`
`So we have an agreed initial disclosure statement of
`
`October 20th and running the proposed schedule we have
`
`submitted and the proposed case management plan we’ve got
`
`agreement on fact discovery closing October 5, 2015 and we’ve
`
`also got agreement on expert discovery. In large part we’ve
`
`got expert discovery closing on March 11, 2016 with some dates
`
`in advance of that about exchange of expert reports, opening
`
`reports on December 15, 2015. Responsive expert reports
`
`January 29, 2016 and then reply expert reports February 15,
`
`2016.
`
`So we think generally the framework is agreed among
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-02758-PAC Document 69-1 Filed 06/10/15 Page 5 of 14
`Case 1:14-cv-02497-PAC Document 38 Filed 10/14/14 Page 9 of 42
`
`9
`
`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
`
`the parties. Also we have an agreed suggested final pretrial
`
`submission date of April 25, 2016.
`
`We do have disagreement on a few discrete aspects of
`
`the discovery approach in the case, Your Honor. One of those
`
`areas of disagreement I think is the concept of contention
`
`interrogatories. It’s our understanding that in the Southern
`
`District the contention interrogatories come towards the end
`
`of the case once things are fully vetted, the parties
`
`understand where they’re at and that kind of thing, and so we
`
`believe that the appropriate time for contention
`
`interrogatories would be near the close of fact discovery.
`
`It’s my understanding that the defendants would like to
`
`advance some interrogatory practice as far as infringement
`
`contentions and invalidity contentions.
`
`I understand, Your Honor, under the local patent
`
`rules there’s some reference to infringement contentions and
`
`invalidity contentions but the case we have here is a little
`
`bit different from the ordinary kind of standard patent case
`
`where you’d see that type of thing maybe early on in a case.
`
`In this particular type of case there’s Hatch-Waxman standing
`
`to bring suit based on Paragraph 4 filings but then in the
`
`course of discovery the plaintiffs will need to have access to
`
`the defendant’s Andis [Ph.], do the analysis of the Andis
`
`involved experts and go through the whole course of review of
`
`documents and that kind of thing over the course of time and
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-02758-PAC Document 69-1 Filed 06/10/15 Page 6 of 14
`Case 1:14-cv-02497-PAC Document 38 Filed 10/14/14 Page 10 of 42
`
`10
`
`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
`
`then the defendants also will have invalidity contentions. So
`
`we’ve had experience in this court before, Your Honor, where
`
`we’ve actually used the contention interrogatory deadline as
`
`the time when we exchange information about infringement
`
`contentions and invalidity contentions. It seems to us that
`
`since those are inherently contention interrogatories that the
`
`fundamental purpose of the contention interrogatory approach
`
`in the Southern District would be fulfilled by scheduling that
`
`then.
`
`Then I think we’ve made some progress on what I
`
`thought was a dispute about production of documents. We’ve
`
`been of the view that you produce documents in the ordinary
`
`course of discovery over time and the defendants had some
`
`proposal which is reflected in the parties joint submission as
`
`far as having kind of some staggered foreign versus U.S.
`
`discovery deadlines which with the more burdensome production
`
`advanced earlier which just didn’t really make sense to us,
`
`Your Honor, but I think in speaking further with the
`
`defendants it looks like we were approaching perhaps an agreed
`
`compromise as far as having one target date for substantial
`
`production of documents, and we had submitted that perhaps if
`
`the court wanted to go down that path and perhaps set a
`
`particular date for substantial completion we had suggested
`
`that perhaps June 5th of 2016 might be appropriate.
`
`But we understand that the defendants were
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-02758-PAC Document 69-1 Filed 06/10/15 Page 7 of 14
`Case 1:14-cv-02497-PAC Document 38 Filed 10/14/14 Page 11 of 42
`
`11
`
`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
`
`considering perhaps a modified approach where there would be
`
`one date for all production for substantial completion but
`
`maybe a little bit earlier than that which in the interest of
`
`compromise, Your Honor --
`
`THE COURT: Would more time assist you in coming to
`
`an agreement?
`
`MS. CARR: Excuse me, Your Honor? I’m sorry.
`
`THE COURT: Would more time -- would more time
`
`facilitate -- normally I sign these civil case management
`
`plans at the conclusion of a conference. Would you like
`
`another week to talk about it with your adversaries?
`
`MS. CARR: That might be helpful.
`
`THE COURT: Before I make up my mind and my mind’s
`
`not made up. It will be somewhat random, you know.
`
`MR. AINSWORTH: Your Honor, Paul Ainsworth on behalf
`
`of Aurobindo. I think I speak for all of the defendants right
`
`now. We would like to get an order, a scheduling order
`
`entered today. We don’t think additional time is going to
`
`resolve all the disputes we have.
`
`THE COURT: All right. Okay. Well, let’s go through
`
`the civil case management plan. You can point out the areas
`
`of agreement and disag -- well, the areas of disagreement and
`
`to get my rulings right away.
`
`MS. CARR: Sure. Thank you, Your Honor. So with
`
`respect to the court’s suggestion we would be willing to try
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-02758-PAC Document 69-1 Filed 06/10/15 Page 8 of 14
`Case 1:14-cv-02497-PAC Document 38 Filed 10/14/14 Page 12 of 42
`
`12
`
`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
`
`to cooperate and submit a joint agreed plan but you can only
`
`cooperate when there’s two directions doing it.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. So I mean that’s true. So I’m on
`
`Page -- I have the civil case management plan and scheduling
`
`order. The first dispute I have -- not a dispute but contrary
`
`proposals, different proposals is with regard to amending
`
`their pleadings. Without leave of court on or before May 11
`
`plaintiff’s proposal on or before February 15. Who from the
`
`defendants wants to be heard on the May 11th proposal?
`
`MS. MAZZOCHI: This is Deanne Mazzochi for Mylan,
`
`Your Honor. Our basic point with proposing the May 2015 date
`
`is we were hoping to actually get some substantive document
`
`discovery from the plaintiffs in place before we would have --
`
`before the deadline for amending the pleadings. We
`
`essentially wanted to try to get some information and get some
`
`discovery first before that decision would be cut off and we
`
`thought that the plaintiff’s date which was February 15, 2015
`
`if we served the production requests in November/December by
`
`the time they get responded to we’re going to be looking at
`
`January. That really just did not leave much time to review
`
`the documents even if we assume the plaintiffs were able to
`
`produce everything within 30 days. We thought it was more --
`
`and this date further with regard to the substantial
`
`completion date May 11th is shortly after --
`
`THE COURT: Well, it is without leave of court too.
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-02758-PAC Document 69-1 Filed 06/10/15 Page 9 of 14
`Case 1:14-cv-02497-PAC Document 38 Filed 10/14/14 Page 31 of 42
`
`31
`
`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
`
`briefs on that.
`
`MS. MAZZOCHI: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`MS. CARR: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Now, you think we can do this because I
`
`don’t want to keep you waiting -- today is the 6th. Do you
`
`think we can do it by Friday the 10th or is that pressing it?
`
`MS. MAZZOCHI: That’s fine with us, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MS. CARR: That’s fine with us.
`
`THE COURT: Then I can read the papers and I’ll rule
`
`by the 15th.
`
`MS. CARR: Thank you very much, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Now, the last thing is we have to agree
`
`upon a date to come back again where we’re going to meet and
`
`see how we’re doing. Ms. Carr or Ms. Mazzochi or anybody else
`
`who wants to say anything, do you have any suggestions as to
`
`the next time we should meet?
`
`MS. CARR: Your Honor, my suggestion would be --
`
`we’re at the very beginning of the case and probably it would
`
`make sense to give the parties a few months at least to do
`
`their initial disclosures and the initial steps of discovery.
`
`So perhaps three months from now or something like that.
`
`THE COURT: Yes, right after the holidays?
`
`MS. CARR: That seems to make sense, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Ms. Mazzochi.
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-02758-PAC Document 69-1 Filed 06/10/15 Page 10 of 14
`Case 1:14-cv-02497-PAC Document 38 Filed 10/14/14 Page 32 of 42
`
`32
`
`MS. MAZZOCHI: Your Honor, I would propose maybe
`
`shortly after the January 20th deadline to meet and confer on
`
`the depositions so that way we -- if there is going to be an
`
`issue we can get that before the court right away.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Why don’t we agree on -- there may
`
`be other things that take up -- during the week of January
`
`12th, Marlin.
`
`THE CLERK: Wednesday, January 14th at 4:45 p.m., Your
`
`Honor.
`
`Thank you.
`
`very much.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. And allow about an hour for it.
`
`[Pause in proceedings.]
`
`THE COURT: Ms. Carr, anything else to take up?
`
`MS. CARR: Nothing further at this time, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Mr. Conlin.
`
`MR. CONLIN: Nothing further, Your Honor. Thank you
`
`THE COURT: Ms. Mazzochi.
`
`MS. MAZZOCHI: Your Honor, we just want -- sorry.
`
`Co-defendant counsel just wanted to make sure that we’re not
`
`abandoning the Rule 33.3(c) interrogatories.
`
`FEMALE VOICE: I think the -- I’m sorry, Your Honor.
`
`Katherine [inaudible]. I just wanted to make sure that --
`
`well, defendants have proposed dates of December 5, 2014 and
`
`January 16, 2015 for -- under the local patent rules,
`
`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 1:14-cv-02758-PAC Document 69-1 Filed 06/10/15 Page 11 of 14
`Case 1:14-cv-02497-PAC Document 38 Filed 10/14/14 Page 33 of 42
`
`33
`
`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
`
`preliminary infringement contentions and preliminary
`
`invalidity contentions. I just want to make sure that it’s
`
`part of Your Honor’s order that those dates would be adopted.
`
`THE COURT: Ms. Carr.
`
`MS. CARR: Your Honor, I was under the understanding
`
`that those were part of the contention interrogatories you
`
`were talking about under Rule 33 --
`
`THE COURT: Yes, that’s what I thought too. Yes,
`
`Ms. --
`
`FEMALE VOICE: That was the comment that I made
`
`earlier because under the local -- under Rule 33 we wouldn’t
`
`get their position on infringement until one month before the
`
`close of fact discovery and the patent rules contemplate a
`
`different schedule, a much quicker schedule for the mutual
`
`disclosure of infringement and validity positions so that you
`
`know what to focus your discovery on.
`
`MS. CARR: Absolutely. Including asserted claims,
`
`Your Honor, the patent rules contemplate both asserted claims
`
`and --
`
`THE COURT: What’s -- I’m familiar with the local
`
`rule on interrogatories but I’ll plead guilty to not being
`
`familiar with the patent local rules and interrogatories.
`
`What is it?
`
`FEMALE VOICE: Rules 6 and 7. I can hand them up to
`
`Your Honor.
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-02758-PAC Document 69-1 Filed 06/10/15 Page 12 of 14
`Case 1:14-cv-02497-PAC Document 38 Filed 10/14/14 Page 34 of 42
`
`THE COURT: No. Just tell me.
`
`FEMALE VOICE: So under Rule 6 --
`
`MS. MAZZOCHI: Your Honor, a party --
`
`34
`
`FEMALE VOICE: It’s disclosure of asserted -- it’s
`
`local patent Rule 6 which says unless otherwise specified by
`
`the court not later than 45 days after the initial scheduling
`
`conference a party claiming patent infringement must serve on
`
`all parties a disclosure of asserted claims and infringement
`
`contentions which identifies for each opposing party each
`
`claim, each patent in suit that was alleged infringed and then
`
`provides the reasons.
`
`Under local patent Rule 7 invalidity contentions by
`
`the defendants are due 45 days after receipt of the
`
`plaintiff’s infringement contentions.
`
`FEMALE VOICE: Yes, Your Honor, and that’s
`
`absolutely critical that we --
`
`THE COURT: Absolutely critical?
`
`FEMALE VOICE: Yes. I’m sorry to be emphatic but --
`
`THE COURT: I’ll underscore that.
`
`FEMALE VOICE: -- it is very important that we know
`
`what claims are asserted against us and what plaintiff’s
`
`positions are on infringement.
`
`THE COURT: Ms. Carr.
`
`MS. CARR: Your Honor --
`
`THE COURT: As I say I have a strong preference for
`
`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 1:14-cv-02758-PAC Document 69-1 Filed 06/10/15 Page 13 of 14
`Case 1:14-cv-02497-PAC Document 38 Filed 10/14/14 Page 35 of 42
`
`35
`
`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
`
`the local rules.
`
`MS. CARR: Yes, Your Honor. I think we were on the
`
`same page and I thought this issue already has been addressed
`
`and decided on but we still firmly believe, Your Honor, that
`
`this is appropriate for contention interrogatories. It is
`
`contentions that we’re talking about. The local patent rules
`
`I think defendant’s counsels are referencing actually I think
`
`apply in different types of contexts in particular with regard
`
`to Hatch-Waxman litigation because we don’t even have their
`
`[inaudible] and there’s a lot of work to do before you can
`
`sort through six different companies [inaudible] that kind of
`
`thing but they fundamentally are contention interrogatories,
`
`Your Honor, and that’s what our view is and it’s worked well
`
`in other cases in this district in the past.
`
`FEMALE VOICE: Your Honor, if I may. These are local
`
`rules. These are just local patent rules.
`
`THE COURT: I understand that. All right. I think
`
`I’ll just take some time to think about this and put that in
`
`your letter briefs and you’ll have my decision and the agreed
`
`upon -- or the ordered civil case management plan by Friday --
`
`by Wednesday the 15th of October.
`
`Anything else to take up? Ms. Carr?
`
`MS. CARR: Thank you very much, Your Honor. Not at
`
`this time.
`
`MS. MAZZOCHI: Nothing further, Your Honor.
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-02758-PAC Document 69-1 Filed 06/10/15 Page 14 of 14
`Case 1:14-cv-02497-PAC Document 38 Filed 10/14/14 Page 36 of 42
`
`THE COURT: Thank you very much.
`
`MALE VOICE: Your Honor --
`
`THE COURT: Yes.
`
`36
`
`MR. KESCH: We have a letter that we had sent to the
`
`court regarding a motion that we understood would be able to
`
`be heard here. It’s not an issue for the other defendants but
`
`if the court would like to hear it we’d be happy to be heard
`
`on it.
`
`THE COURT: Just a minute. Let me get this away.
`
`[Pause in proceedings.]
`
`(Away from microphones at this point.)
`
`THE COURT: You’re Mr. Kesch?
`
`MR. KESCH: Yes.
`
`THE COURT: I thought Mylan had the -- you, Ms.
`
`Mazzochi, had the -- the court lacked subject matter
`
`jurisdiction over any and all claims asserted Mylan.
`
`MS. MAZZOCHI: Yes, Your Honor. We have that
`
`although I don’t believe we have anything briefed on that in a
`
`letter brief yet but I believe --
`
`THE COURT: Do you intend to make that application?
`
`MS. MAZZOCHI: My client is still considering that,
`
`Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Mr. Kesch, I wasn’t aware that Sawai
`
`[Ph.] was going to move to dismiss?
`
`MR. KESCH: Well, we did -- we sent a letter, Your
`
`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
`
`
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
