Filed: Feb. 02, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 02, 2011
Summary: FIFTH JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR GENENTECH TO FILE OBJECTIONS TO THE COURT'S NOVEMBER 22 ORDER LUCY H. KOH, District Judge. WHEREAS on January 11, 2011, plaintiff Genentech, Inc. ("Genentech") and defendant the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania ("the University") filed a Fourth Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order to Extend the Deadline for Genentech to File Objections to the Court's November 22 Order (Dkt. No. 78) to February 1, 2011; and WHERE
Summary: FIFTH JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR GENENTECH TO FILE OBJECTIONS TO THE COURT'S NOVEMBER 22 ORDER LUCY H. KOH, District Judge. WHEREAS on January 11, 2011, plaintiff Genentech, Inc. ("Genentech") and defendant the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania ("the University") filed a Fourth Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order to Extend the Deadline for Genentech to File Objections to the Court's November 22 Order (Dkt. No. 78) to February 1, 2011; and WHEREA..
More
FIFTH JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR GENENTECH TO FILE OBJECTIONS TO THE COURT'S NOVEMBER 22 ORDER
LUCY H. KOH, District Judge.
WHEREAS on January 11, 2011, plaintiff Genentech, Inc. ("Genentech") and defendant the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania ("the University") filed a Fourth Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order to Extend the Deadline for Genentech to File Objections to the Court's November 22 Order (Dkt. No. 78) to February 1, 2011; and
WHEREAS the parties wanted the deadline extension to discuss whether there is a way to limit Genentech's production of regulatory materials, other than the BLA Submissions (as that term is used in the Court's November 22 Order), to avoid the production of irrelevant materials; and
WHEREAS, the parties are continuing to address the proper scope for production of the regulatory materials and believe that an additional extension would benefit their discussion; and
WHEREAS, the parties are continuing to arrange an appropriate manner in which to proceed with the production; and
WHEREAS, if the parties are unable to reach agreement, Genentech may wish to file objections to the Court's Order;
THE PARTIES THEREFORE AGREE as follows:
1. The deadline for Genentech to object with respect to the following sentence in the Court's November 22, 2010 Order, now set for February 1, 2011, is extended to February 15, 2011:
In addition, to the extent there is responsive electronic data other than the BLA Submissions in Defendant's possession, custody or control that is responsive to Document Request No. 36, Plaintiff shall either produce the unredacted data to Defendant by November 30, 2010, or else file a declaration by that date showing why it cannot do so and setting forth the earliest possible date that it will be able to do so.
2. No other provision of the Court's November 22, 2010 Order is changed.
SO STIPULATED.
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The deadline for Genentech to object with respect to the following sentence in the Court's November 22, 2010 Order, now set for February 1, 2011, is extended to February 15, 2011:
In addition, to the extent there is responsive electronic data other than the BLA Submissions in Defendant's possession, custody or control that is responsive to Document Request No. 36, Plaintiff shall either produce the unredacted data to Defendant by November 30, 2010, or else file a declaration by that date showing why it cannot do so and setting forth the earliest possible date that it will be able to do so.
2. No other provision of the Court's November 22, 2010 Order is changed.
SO ORDERED.
