Sergeants Benevolent Association Health & Welfare Fund v. Actavis, PLC, 15-cv-6549 (CM) (RWL). (2020)
Court: District Court, S.D. New York
Number: infdco20200107763
Visitors: 18
Filed: Jan. 01, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 01, 2020
Summary: ORDER ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER , Magistrate Judge . Defendants' letter motion to compel Plaintiff to revise its responses to the requests for admission identified in Dkt. 296 is granted for substantially the reasons set forth in Dkt. 296 and 299. The deadline for issuing RFAs is just that — a deadline; it does not limit issuing RFAs at an earlier time. The RFAs also are not duplicative of earlier discovery in the direct purchaser litigation, nor could they be as Plaintiff is not a party to that
Summary: ORDER ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER , Magistrate Judge . Defendants' letter motion to compel Plaintiff to revise its responses to the requests for admission identified in Dkt. 296 is granted for substantially the reasons set forth in Dkt. 296 and 299. The deadline for issuing RFAs is just that — a deadline; it does not limit issuing RFAs at an earlier time. The RFAs also are not duplicative of earlier discovery in the direct purchaser litigation, nor could they be as Plaintiff is not a party to that ..
More
ORDER
ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER, Magistrate Judge.
Defendants' letter motion to compel Plaintiff to revise its responses to the requests for admission identified in Dkt. 296 is granted for substantially the reasons set forth in Dkt. 296 and 299. The deadline for issuing RFAs is just that — a deadline; it does not limit issuing RFAs at an earlier time. The RFAs also are not duplicative of earlier discovery in the direct purchaser litigation, nor could they be as Plaintiff is not a party to that case.
The Court has considered all other opposing arguments by Plaintiff and finds them to be without merit. Plaintiff shall serve revised responses to the RFAs at issue by January 28, 2020.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
