Unlike the term at issue in the DPP matter, none of the terms used in IPPs’ proposed class definitions lack objective criteria.

Common grounds for reconsideration include “an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Virgin Atl.

DPPs seek to circumvent this well-established case law by arguing that modifying the composition of the proposed settlement class “does not materially alter the contractual agreements the Settling Defendants executed.” (Dkt. 754-1 at 11).

The Court disagrees with DPPs that modifying the definition of the proposed settlement class to include purchases that by DPPs’ own description cannot possibly have been impacted by the alleged wrongdoing can be considered immaterial.

On June 27, 2024, three days after issuance of the Preliminary Approval Denial D&O, Shintech sent a letter to DPPs “exercis[ing] its option to terminate the Settlement Agreement made and entered into on December 5, 2023[.

The Court need not and does not resolve these more complicated contract interpretation issues at this time, because it concludes that DPPs’ amended motion must be denied as to Formosa USA and Westlake even if their settlement agreements have not been terminated, for the reasons previously discussed.

The parties nonetheless agree to reasonably attempt to include said individuals as part of their preservation, collection, and search efforts for likely discoverable information as appropriate and as possible.

Lambert’s Justification for Violating Court Orders None of the justifications Lambert has offered for her conduct, which as noted above is largely undisputed, excuse her actions as Byrne’s counsel of record.

Despite Lambert’s claim that she has “won” every time she encountered any sort of grievance or discipline, the Pennsylvania and Georgia courts’ opinions paint a concerning picture of her conduct in those cases nonetheless.

It is further ORDERED that the following schedule shall govern.

Deadline for Completion of Fact Discovery: September 30, 2024 Deadline for Proponents to Designate Expert Witnesses and Produce Expert Reports under Fed. R. Civ.

P. 26(a)(2): October 28, 2024 Deadline for Opponents to Designate Expert Witnesses and Produce Expert Reports Under Fed. R. Civ.

P. 26(a)(2): December 9, 2024 Deadline for Proponents to Produce Responsive Expert Reports: January 20, 2025 Deadline for Expert Depositions: February 24, 2025 Status Conference: In-Person Status Conference at 11:00 am on February 18, 2025 Deadline to File Dispositive Motions: March 14, 2025 Deadline to File Oppositions to Dispositive Motions: April 21, 2025 Deadline to File Replies in Support of Dispositive Motions: June 2, 2025 It is so ORDERED.

Dated: June 3, 2024 Carl J. Nichols United States District Judge

None of this is to say that Herring was required to plead that the alleged disparaging statements were the sole reason for Dominion’s suit.

The court concluded there was a triable issue as to whether the crosswalk was unreasonably dangerous “for failure to include additional warnings regarding pedestrians crossing from the parking lot.” However, it concluded there was no triable issue as to whether this condition caused the accident, stating, “Additional warning was not relevant to the accident since [Halbe] admitted that he was aware of the location of the crosswalk and the need for caution and was looking out for pedestrians but due to sun in his eyes he was unable to see [Mileham].” Mileham timely appealed.

Mileham contends the trial court erred by granting Walmart’s motion for summary judgment because there was a triable issue as to whether a breach of Walmart’s duty of care caused her accident.

Under these circumstances, an additional warning sign would have changed nothing.2 (Buck v. Standard Oil Co. (1958) 157 Cal.App.2d 230, 236 [“Where one has actual Mileham requests we take judicial notice of documents relating to a jury verdict against Walmart in a Texas case.

Rosescu stated that “measures such as attention-drawing signage and/or speed bumps would have ... decreased the likelihood of pedestrians getting struck by a vehicle.” Thus, he discussed a speedbump only as a potential alternative or addition to a warning sign.

Because the record shows as a matter of law that the absence of a warning sign did not contribute to Mileham’s injury, the trial court correctly granted summary judgment for Walmart.

• For each case, each side in that case, except as specified in the following paragraph, can choose 1 party deponent for whom that side has additional time on the tape (an “Extended Time Party Deponent”).

• Notwithstanding the above, Christina Bobb and Defending the Republic may each designate an Extended Time Party Deponent of their own.

Dominion may designate an additional two Extended Time Party Deponents as follows: one in its case against the Herring Parties and Bobb, and one in its case against the Powell Parties and Defending the Republic • The parties will reserve two consecutive business days for all Extended Time Deponent depositions, although the deponent at his or her election may choose to sit for the entire deposition on one day.

If more than one Defendant (but not Dominion) noticed the deposition or subpoenaed the witness, they will work together to select a date.

For good cause shown, any party may move for the deposition to proceed via zoom.

Under Rules 5.2 and 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Order Governing the Production and Exchange of Confidential Information (the “Order”) will govern the handling of documents, testimony (in any form whether by affidavit, declaration, or deposition), exhibits, transcripts, written discovery requests, interrogatory responses, responses to requests for admission, responses to requests for documents, and any other information or material produced, given, or exchanged, including any information contained therein or derived therefrom (“Discovery Material”), by or among any Party or non- Party providing Discovery Material (each a “Producing Party”) in the Litigation1 to the party receiving the Discovery Material (“Receiving Party”).

Each such person will maintain the Confidential or Attorneys’ Eyes Only Discovery Material, or information derived therefrom, in a manner reasonably calculated to prevent unauthorized disclosure.

This Court will retain jurisdiction over all persons subject to this Order to the extent necessary to enforce any obligations arising hereunder or to impose sanctions for any contempt thereof.

WHEREAS, the parties to the above-captioned action (the “Litigation”) are engaged in or may become engaged in discovery proceedings, which include, among other things, taking depositions, answering interrogatories, and producing documents; WHEREAS, the Court entered an Order Governing the Production and Exchange of Confidential Information, as amended (the “Protective Order”); and WHEREAS, the Parties to this litigation believe that discovery may include production of computer source code that contains proprietary information that is highly commercially sensitive; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to Rules 5.2 and 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that the provisions of this Order shall govern the production and treatment of confidential source code and any documents or testimony containing source code.2

describe in detail the algorithms or structure of software or hardware designs, disclosure of which would create a substantial risk of serious harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means.