Search court records - party Grace Brier, page 3

No. 309 ORDER

Document Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Research Development Foundation, 2:21-cv-02241, No. 309 (D.Nev. Sep. 18, 2024)

These opinions are also potentially relevant to the unenforceability question because the amount of effort Pacira put into developing the 200L process helps answer whether enforcement of the Agreements would be unconscionable.

Reliability requires the court to assess whether an expert’s testimony has a “reliable basis in the knowledge and experience of the relevant discipline.” Kumho Tire Co. v Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 149 (1999) (citation and alterations omitted).

Like its response to the motion in limine to exclude Dr. Thomas, Pacira argues that Ho’s opinions are relevant to the question of unenforceability, because his comparison of the processes could assist the court in understanding whether enforcement of the Agreements for the ’495 patent would be unconscionable.

2017) (“An expert witness cannot render an opinion as to a legal conclusion, as ‘instructing the jury as to the applicable law is the distinct and exclusive province of the court.’” (quoting Nationwide Transp.

As to his rebuttal of her Amendment Technical Scope Analysis,” RDF argues that Ho’s testimony does not actually challenge the opinions of Michniak-Kohn’s report but instead introduces a “temporal limitation” argument that is irrelevant to the issues for trial.

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
- Cristina Silva
Analyze Party
- Pacira Pharmaceuticals
Analyze Firm

No. 74 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 63 motion to reopen discovery; granting 53 motion ...

Document Loop LLC v. CDK Global, LLC, 3:24-cv-00571, No. 74 (W.D.Wis Sep. 18, 2024)

Parties who fail to do so may not seek to change the schedule on the ground that discovery proceeded too slowly to meet the deadlines set in this order.

All discovery-related motions must be accompanied by a supporting brief, affidavit, or other document showing a prima facie entitlement to the relief requested.

Any employee of a party who will be offering expert opinions during any phase of this case must provide a written report that complies with Rule 26(a)(2)(B).

Failure to comply with these deadlines and procedures could result in the court striking the testimony of a party=s experts pursuant to Rule 37.

The format for submitting proposed voir dire questions, jury instructions and verdict forms is set forth in the Procedures Governing Final Pretrial Submissions, which is attached.

Cite Document

Analyze

No. 307 ORDER

Document Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Research Development Foundation, 2:21-cv-02241, No. 307 (D.Nev. Sep. 17, 2024)

“The Supreme Court has recognized that a ruling on a motion in limine is essentially a preliminary opinion that falls entirely within the discretion of the district court.” United States v. Bensimon, 172 F.3d 1121, 1127 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Luce, 469 U.S. at 41–42); accord Walter Kidde Portable Equip., Inc. v. Universal Sec.

So even accepting RDF’s arguments as true, Stevens’s 4 The summary judgment order states “I find no ambiguity in either of the agreements and note that ‘ambiguity does not arise simply because the parties disagree on how to interpret their contract.’” ECF No. 152 at 8 n.4 (citing Galardi, 301 P.3d at 366) (emphasis added).

It argues that Stevens’s statement that “the Amendment and the Agreements as a whole were at the time of their execution and are today fair and reasonable IP contracts for both parties from an economic and commercial point of view” is directly tethered to the legal standard for Pacira’s unconscionability defense.

Relevance of Michniak-Kohn’s testimony on the “Amendment Technical Scope” In her written report, Michniak-Kohn first explored the “Amendment Phrase” (“the phrase”), which she defined as “microscopic, spherical particles composed of multiple nonconcentric aqueous chambers encapsulating the biologically active substance therein in the presence or absence of any acid or salt or other compound.” ECF No. 247-4 at 19.

Although parts of Michniak-Kohn’s testimony may no longer be as relevant as they were when interpretation of § 1.4 remained a live issue, I do not see how her comparison of the various MVL patents serving a slightly different function amounts to an undisclosed position.

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
- Cristina Silva
Analyze Party
- Pacira Pharmaceuticals
Analyze Firm

No. 308 ORDER

Document Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Research Development Foundation, 2:21-cv-02241, No. 308 (D.Nev. Sep. 17, 2024)

In this same filing, Pacira moves to maintain the seal on several documents, namely Exhibit A-11 to Pacira’s omnibus motion in limine (ECF No. 236-16), which comprises excerpts of RDF’s second supplemental and amended objections and answers to Pacira’s first set of interrogatories (Nos. 1–12).

Pacira argues that sealing portions of this document is warranted to protect Pacira’s highly confidential and commercially sensitive technical information related to manufacturing processes for its EXPAREL® product from public disclosure.

Pacira further requests that portions of exhibit 2 (ECF No. 226-2) to RDF’s motion to exclude certain opinions and testimony of Pacira’s expert Dr. Rodney Ho remain under seal because Dr. Ho’s report discusses highly confidential and commercially sensitive technical information related to Pacira’s manufacturing processes for its EXPAREL® product.

Here, Pacira contends that exhibits A-3 and A-6 comprise Dr. Ho’s reports discussing highly confidential and commercially sensitive technical information related to Pacira’s manufacturing processes for its EXPAREL® product.

However, within 14 days the parties must make a more specific showing as to what good cause exists—if any—to support the sealing of the references to and transcript of the August 12, 2024, motion hearing.

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
- Cristina Silva
Analyze Party
- Pacira Pharmaceuticals
Analyze Firm

No. 306

Document Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Research Development Foundation, 2:21-cv-02241, No. 306 (D.Nev. Sep. 13, 2024)

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case

No. 303 ORDER granting 223 , 254 Motions in Limine and 278 , 290 Motions for Leave to File Excess ...

Document Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Research Development Foundation, 2:21-cv-02241, No. 303 (D.Nev. Sep. 10, 2024)

Motion in LimineGranted

Research Development Foundation, [ECF Nos. 223, 254, 278, 290] Defendant In advance of the bench trial in this matter commencing on September 23, 2024, the court grants the parties’ respective unopposed motions.

Defendant Research Development Foundation’s (“RDF”) motion in limine to exclude portions of Mark Edwards’s opinions and testimony.

Because plaintiff Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Inc. filed a notice of non-opposition (ECF No. 260), the motions [ECF Nos. 223, 254] are granted.

RDF’s motion for leave to file its reply in support of its motions in limine [ECF No. 278] and Pacira’s motion for leave to file a reply in support of its omnibus motion in limine [ECF No. 290] are granted as unopposed.

Dated: September 10, 2024 __________________ ______________ Cristina D. Silva United States District Judge

Cite Document

Analyze