`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 21-558 (MN)
`
`SHILPA PHARMA, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS
`CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
`
`At Wilmington, this 17th day of May 2022:
`
`WHEREAS, on May 5, 2022, Special Master The Honorable Sue L. Robinson issued a
`
`Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) (D.I. 98) in this action recommending that the Court
`
`deny, “without prejudice to renew, e.g., if Mr. Iyer’s role changes contrary to Shilpa’s
`
`representations made to date”, Defendant’s Motion to Disqualify Chidambaram S. Iyer as
`
`Plaintiff’s Counsel Under the Lawyer-Witness Rule (D.I. 41);
`
`
`
`WHEREAS, the Report set a seven (7) day deadline to file written objections such that
`
`objections were due May 12, 2022;
`
`
`
`WHEREAS, no party objected to the shortened objection period and nor did either request
`
`additional time to file objections; and
`
`
`
`WHEREAS, no party filed objections to the Report pursuant to Rule 72(b)(2) of the Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure in the ordered period, and the Court finding no clear error on the face of
`
`the record.
`
`
`
`THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the Report and Recommendation
`
`(D.I. 98) is ADOPTED and Defendant’s Motion to Disqualify Chidambaram S. Iyer as Plaintiff’s
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00558-MN Document 101 Filed 05/17/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1022
`
`Counsel Under the Lawyer-Witness Rule (D.I. 41) is DENIED without prejudice to renew, e.g., if
`
`Mr. Iyer’s role changes contrary to Shilpa’s representations made to date.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Honorable Maryellen Noreika
`United States District Court Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
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
