• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Displaying 54-68 of 190 results

No. 383 LETTER MOTION to Seal addressed to Judge Lewis J. Liman from Celia A. McLaughlin dated March ...

Document In re Bystolic Antitrust Litigation, 1:20-cv-05735, No. 383 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2022)
Motion to Seal
The Honorable Lewis J. Liman United States District Court Southern District of New York Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Re: Letter Motion for Approval to Seal in In re Bystolic Antitrust Litig., Case No. 1:20-cv-
Dear Judge Liman: I write on behalf of the Forest Defendants in the above-captioned litigation pursuant to ¶ 18 of the Protective Order, ECF No. 148, and this Court’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases ¶¶ 1.B and
Paragraph 18 of the Protective Order provides that, in the event a party makes an under-seal filing, “the Court will hold the motion to seal in abeyance for fourteen (14) calendar days for the Producing Party to file a letter brief in support of any proposed redactions, and as exhibits thereto, proposed redacted public versions of any sealed papers consistent with Rule 2(G).” Accordingly, Defendants submit this letter respectfully requesting that the Court approve the proposed redactions to the amended complaints.
The proposed redactions cover the detailed financial and other commercially sensitive terms of the agreements produced to the Plaintiffs on a “confidential, outside counsel only basis.” See Joint The Honorable Lewis J. Liman March 8, 2022 Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order No. 1 ¶ 13, ECF No. 82; Protective Order ¶¶ 3, 10, ECF No. 148.
Ltd., LLC, v. Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P., 2015 WL 4298572, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 15, 2015) (finding that “disclosure would cause ‘significant and irreparable competitive injury to both Defendants and [a] Non-Party Entity’ because the information was ‘commercially sensitive’”).
cite Cite Document

No. 382 MOTION to Amend/Correct Opinion and Order

Document In re Bystolic Antitrust Litigation, 1:20-cv-05735, No. 382 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2022)
and Order appointing leadership of the End-Payor Class (“Leadership Order”) to substitute DiCello Levitt Gutzler for Labaton Sucharow LLP as the firm affiliated with Robin van der Meulen, who was appointed Interim Co-Lead Counsel for the End-Payor Class by the Court on October 13, 2020.
Since that time, and indeed since the inception of the action, Ms. van der Meulen has led and managed the case on a day-to-day basis, overseeing her litigation team and working closely and effectively with co-lead counsel Sharon Robertson at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll LLC.
She has been intimately involved in all aspects of this litigation, diligently fulfilling the duties and responsibilities described and authorized by the Court in its Leadership Order.
On March 7, 2022, Ms. van der Meulen joined the law firm DiCello Levitt Gutzler as a partner.1 Ms. van der Meulen now respectfully moves to amend the Leadership Order to reflect her new firm affiliation.
Thus, Ms. van der Meulen and DiCello Levitt, together with her established team and based on their demonstrated commitment to the case, will continue to fulfill their responsibilities and obligations in the best interests of the End-Payor Class as Interim Co-lead Counsel.
cite Cite Document

No. 372

Document In re Bystolic Antitrust Litigation, 1:20-cv-05735, No. 372 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2022)

cite Cite Document

No. 371

Document In re Bystolic Antitrust Litigation, 1:20-cv-05735, No. 371 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2022)

cite Cite Document

No. 374

Document In re Bystolic Antitrust Litigation, 1:20-cv-05735, No. 374 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2022)

cite Cite Document

No. 375

Document In re Bystolic Antitrust Litigation, 1:20-cv-05735, No. 375 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2022)

cite Cite Document

No. 434

Document In re Bystolic Antitrust Litigation, 1:20-cv-05735, No. 434 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2022)

cite Cite Document

No. 370

Document In re Bystolic Antitrust Litigation, 1:20-cv-05735, No. 370 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2022)

cite Cite Document

No. 432

Document In re Bystolic Antitrust Litigation, 1:20-cv-05735, No. 432 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2022)

cite Cite Document

No. 359

Document In re Bystolic Antitrust Litigation, 1:20-cv-05735, No. 359 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2022)

cite Cite Document

No. 362

Document In re Bystolic Antitrust Litigation, 1:20-cv-05735, No. 362 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2022)

cite Cite Document

No. 365

Document In re Bystolic Antitrust Litigation, 1:20-cv-05735, No. 365 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2022)

cite Cite Document

No. 430

Document In re Bystolic Antitrust Litigation, 1:20-cv-05735, No. 430 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2022)

cite Cite Document

No. 429

Document In re Bystolic Antitrust Litigation, 1:20-cv-05735, No. 429 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 30, 2022)

cite Cite Document

No. 428

Document In re Bystolic Antitrust Litigation, 1:20-cv-05735, No. 428 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2022)

cite Cite Document
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 12 13 14 >>