Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

H&H PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC v. CHATTEM CHEMICALS, INC., 2:16-cv-02148-GMN-VCF. (2017)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20170321c32 Visitors: 10
Filed: Mar. 20, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 20, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY REMAINING DISCOVERY PENDING RESOLUTION OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT [ECF NO. 15] CAM FERENBACH , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff H&H Pharmaceuticals, LLC ("Plaintiff"), by and through its attorneys of record, the law firm MAIER GUTIERREZ AYON and defendants Chattem Chemicals, Inc. and Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries, Inc. (collectively "Defendants"), by and through their attorneys of record, the law firms of ROBISON, BELAUSTEGUI, SHARP & L
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY REMAINING DISCOVERY PENDING RESOLUTION OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT [ECF NO. 15]

Plaintiff H&H Pharmaceuticals, LLC ("Plaintiff"), by and through its attorneys of record, the law firm MAIER GUTIERREZ AYON and defendants Chattem Chemicals, Inc. and Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries, Inc. (collectively "Defendants"), by and through their attorneys of record, the law firms of ROBISON, BELAUSTEGUI, SHARP & LOW and STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP, hereby stipulate to request the Court to accept and institute a limited stay of the remaining discovery pending resolution of Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint [ECF No. 15] filed under seal on September 29, 2016. On October 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss [ECF No. 22]. Thereafter, Defendants' filed under seal their reply in support of the motion to dismiss [ECF No. 27] on November 15, 2016.

The parties have proceeded with conducting discovery but are in agreement that the costs for retaining the various experts needed in this complex case will continue to accumulate at a fast pace, whereas the discovery costs could potentially become more manageable based on the outcome of Defendants' pending motion to dismiss. Because Plaintiffs have asserted eleven separate claims for relief, the parties respectfully request that discovery and the dispositive motion deadline be stayed until it is clear what claims are going to survive the pleading phase, so that no further costs are expended on potentially unnecessary discovery.

This is the parties' first request to stay discovery. The parties bring forth this request in good faith and not for the purpose of delay. It is important to note that a trial date has not yet been set in this case, and as such, the trial will not need to be postponed due to the requested stay.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a status hearing is scheduled for 2:00 PM, July 10, 2017, in Courtroom 3D.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer