1 The editor-in-chief is Evan D. Kharasch, and the authors are Nasir Hussain, Richard Brull, Brendan Sheehy, Michael K. Essandoh, David L. Stahl, Tristan E. Weaver, Faraj W. Abdallah, Brian M. Ilfeld, James C. Eisenach, Rodney A. Gabriel, and Mary Ellen McCann.

The cover of the February 2021 issue states that “Liposomal Bupivacaine Is Not Superior to Standard Local Anesthetics” and contains several articles that Pacira alleges make false and misleading statements disparaging EXPAREL.

We exercise plenary review of a district court’s order granting a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, Burtch v. Milberg Factors, Inc., 662 F.3d 212, 220 (3d Cir. 2011), and must determine whether the complaint, construed “in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,” Santomenno ex rel.

8 To succeed on a trade libel claim under New Jersey law, a plaintiff must prove: “(1) publication (2) with malice (3) of false allegations concerning plaintiff’s property or product (4) causing special damages, i.e., pecuniary harm.” Sys.

At the same time, however, it is the essence of the scientific method that the conclusions of empirical research are tentative and subject to revision, because they represent inferences about the nature of reality based on the results of experimentation and observation.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon a letter from Defendants' counsel dated December 30, 2024 (ECF No. 410) opposing Plaintiffs request for leave to take a videotaped trial deposition de bene esse to preserve the testimony of one of its expert witnesses, Dr. William L. Schary, Ph.D., who will be unavailable for trial set to begin on February 19, 2025 (ECF No. 402).

Prior to receiving Defendants' counsel's letter, the Court considered Plaintiffs request, which indicated Dr. Schary would be "unavoidably out of the country" on a "pre-planned, multi-week, prepaid vacation and cruise throughout the Pacific Ocean beginning on or about January 20, 2025, and extending through early April, which cannot be changed or cancelled."

However, this District has previously observed that "many expert witnesses submit to de bene esse depositions rather than appear in person at trial."

To be clear, the Court will still consider in full Defendant Covance, Inc.'s Motion in Limine to Exclude the Report, Opinions, and Testimony of Dr. William Schary (ECF No. 388) in due course.

Thus, for the reasons set forth above, and for good cause shown, IT IS on the 2nd day of January, 2025, ORDERED that Plaintiffs request for leave to take a videotaped trial deposition de bene esse to preserve the testimony of Dr. William L. Schary, / Ph.D. remains GRANTED.

THIS MATTER having come before the Court by way of Plaintiff, Frazier Industrial Company (“Plaintiff”), and Defendant, Spacemaker Systems, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) Joint Motion for an Order to Seal copies of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint and Exhibits and Brief and Certification of Carlos Oliver and Exhibits in support of Plaintiff’s Order to Show Cause, initially filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey (ECF Nos. 1-1 and 1-2) Superior Court of New Jersey, Morris County, Chancery Division-General Equity, under the originally filed docket number of MRS-C-86-24 (the “Chancery Division Matter”), and re-filed by Defendant as exhibits to Defendant’s Notice of Removal (ECF No. 1), and to file redacted copies of the sealed documents on the public docket, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.3(c) and

the Court’s Text Order dated September 20, 2024, ECF No. 13, providing that the Clerk of the Court is directed to temporarily seal Docket No. 1, pending the filing of a joint motion to seal by the parties; Plaintiff having entered a limited appearance for the sole purpose of filing this joint motion to protect its confidential and proprietary information filed on the docket by Defendant as part of its removal application, Plaintiff having objected to the removal and requested a remand of this matter back to the Chancery Division Matter, and the Court having entered an Order to Show Cause as to why the matter should not be remanded; the filing of this joint motion is not being intended by Plaintiff to confer jurisdiction of the Chancery Division Matter on this Court, and Plaintiff maintaining that remand is appropriate; and the Court having reviewed the joint motion to seal and finding oral argument unnecessary, under Fed. R. Civ.

In this District, the party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of demonstrating that good cause exists to overcome the presumption in favor of public access.

Separately, the Court first finds that the relief sought is warranted by the legitimate interest in preventing the widespread disclosure of sensitive business information that could weaken Plaintiff’s competitive position.

Second, in that same vein, the Court concludes that disclosure of the Subject Material would thus result in a clearly defined and serious injury—i.e., the impairment of Plaintiff’s business and competitive advantage—by providing competitors an unfair market advantage.

Following initial briefing by the parties (ECF Nos. 16 & 20), the Court heard oral argument during a telephonic conference on October 8, 2024 (ECF No. 24), The Court carefully considered the supplemental briefs submitted by the parties after oral argument.

All of Plaintiff’s clatms (ECF No, 1-1, Counts IJ-VII) are hereby REMANDEDto the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Morris County.

2, Defendant’s state law counterclaims (ECF No, 1-6, Counts V-VII) are hereby REMANDEDto the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Morris County.

4, The Clerk’s Office is directed to mail a certified copy of this Orderto the Clerk of the New Jersey Superior Court.

For the reasonsset forth,on the record, and other good cause shown, att IT IS on thisa3dayof October, 2024, ORDEREDas follows: Filed 10/23/24 Page 2 of 2 PagelD: 954 # oi #

Citing the factors considered in Meyers v. Pennypack Woods Home Ownership Ass’n, 559 F.2d 894 (3d Cir. 1977), Chegg argues that the report should be stricken.

Pearson argues that the Report is a critical opportunity for Nelson to address the new information in the Ingberman reply on an important issue in the case, Chegg’s fair use defense.

The Special Master notes that there is no trial date set and that the time for experts to supplement or correct disclosures under Rule 26 has not passed.

Here, any potential prejudice can be cured by permitting Chegg to serve a short supplemental response from Dr. Ingberman addressing the new material in the Report.

Indeed, the parties appear to be in agreement on this ME1 50624822v.1 Case 2:21-cv-16866-MEF-AME Document 169 Filed 10/15/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 2959 alternative relief.

Telephone Conference held as to the Text Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 12).

Order to issue.

United States District Court District of New Jersey Clarkson S, Fisher Building & U.S, Courthouse Trenton, New Jersey 08608

Re:—Frazier Industrial Company v. Spacemaker Systems, Inc. Civil Action No, 3:24-cv-09279-GC-TJB Dear Judge Castner: This firm represents Plaintiff, Frazier Industrial Company (“Plaintiff”), in connection with the above-referenced action.

We are in receipt of Your Honor’s text order, dated September20, 2024, ECF No, 12, which orders Defendant, Spacemaker Systems, Inc. (“Defendant”) to show cause by no later than September 24, 2024, as to why the matter should not be remanded back to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, and requests Plaintiff's response to Defendant’s submission by September 27, 2024.

Plaintiff respectfully requests a brief extension to submitits response to Defendant’s brief because the Jead partner on the file, Ms. Suriano, is traveling this week to Chicago for business and returning on Thursday, September 26, 2024, and has an oral argumentfor a dispositive motion on another matter on September30, 2024.

If the Court permits, Plaintiff will submit its response brief on September30, 2024.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon a letter from Defendants Covance, Inc. and Fisher Clinical Services, Inc. (collectively, "Defendants") requesting supplemental Daubert briefing and oral argument, (ECF No. 346), in connection with Defendants' motions to exclude the testimony of Plaintiffs damages expert, Mr. Jeffrey B. Baresciano, (ECF Nos. 205, 209).

Plaintiff Techfields Pharma Co., Ltd. ("Plaintiff) wrote to the Court in opposition to Defendants' request, (ECF No. 347), and Defendants replied, (ECF No. 351).

After considering the parties' submissions, and recognizing district courts' "inherent authority to manage their dockets and courtrooms with a view toward the efficient and expedient resolution of cases," Dietz v. Bouldin,

IT IS on this 17th day of September, 2024, ORDERED that Defendants' request for supplemental Daubert briefing and oral argument is DENIED.

June 18, 2024 This matter comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Cathy L. Waldor’s Report and Recommendation (ECF 63, “R&R”), issued on May 31, 2024, recommending that this Court grant in part and deny in part as moot Defendant Full-Fill’s motion to dismiss or transfer, (ECF 53, “Motion”).

B&G filed an objection.

(ECF 64.)

This Court has considered the parties’ submissions, Judge Waldor’s R&R, and B&G’s objection, and for substantially the same reasons stated in Judge Waldor’s R&R, IT IS on this 18th day of June 2024, ORDERED that Defendant Full-Fill’s Motion (ECF 53) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART in accordance with Judge Waldor’s R&R; and it is further ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, this matter be transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois as this Court lacks personal jurisdiction; and it is further ORDERED that this Court adopts Judge Waldor’s May 31, 2024 R&R.

United States District Judge

There is none here, The most substantial argument raised by the Plaintiff rests on Andy Warhol Found. for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, 598 U.S. 508, 545 (2023).

Plaintiffs also seek to join two new plaintiffs—Amethyst International, Inc., which operates the Motel, and World Trade Associates, Inc., which manages the Motel—to assert the malicious use of process and tortious interference claims on their behalf.

Through the proposed amended pleading, Plaintiffs allege that, in early April 2020, an officer with the Borough Police Department (the “PPBPD”) informed individuals staying at the Motel that they were not required to pay rent due to recent state executive orders issued in response to the

Plaintiffs allege that Michigan texted Kanitra that he was willing to “put[] out [the PPBPD’s] own press release with an announcement of all the pending criminal charges we can issue him for his past and current actions.” (Dkt. No. 12-4 at ¶ 162).

Through the proposed Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs seek to join as parties the operator and manager of the Motel and to assert claims of Malicious Use of Process and Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage and/or Contractual Relations.

Joinder of claims and parties is “strongly encouraged,” and district courts should “entertain[] the broadest possible scope of action consistent with fairness to the parties.” Hagan v. Rogers, 570 F.3d 146, 153 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 724 (1966)).

Rather, it argues that these Requests have previously been denied and that nonetheless, Pearson has produced information in response to other RFPs that are responsive to the Requests as issue here.