Vaccine Center, LLC v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC et al
Filing
51
AMENDED ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part 41 MOTION for Hearing. The parties shall file a proposed protective order for the Courts review no later than February 22, 2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 2/21/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8
THE VACCINE CENTER LLC, d/b/a
THE VACCINE CENTER AND TRAVEL
MEDICAL CLINIC
9
Plaintiff,
10
vs.
11
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC, et al.,
12
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 2:12-cv-01849-JCM-NJK
AMENDED ORDER GRANTING
IN PART MOTION FOR
EMERGENCY HEARING
(Docket No. 41)
13
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s countermotion for emergency hearing, Docket No. 41, seeking
14
15
a hearing and an order that Defendant Apexus, Inc. (“Defendant”) produce Exhibits A and B
16
submitted in support of its motion to dismiss. Defendant filed a responsive brief, see Reply I.S.O.
17
Mot. To Seal (Docket No. 47), and Plaintiff filed a reply (Docket No. 48). The Court finds that a
18
hearing on the motion is unnecessary, see Local Rule 78-2, so that aspect of the pending motion is
19
DENIED. But the motion is hereby GRANTED in part as provided below.
20
Plaintiff’s motion is based primarily on its contention that it cannot properly respond to
21
Defendant’s motion to dismiss without reviewing Exhibits A and B. See Mot. at 4; Coulthard Aff. at
22
¶ 4. Defendant asserts that it has agreed to produce to Plaintiff those exhibits in unredacted form,
23
but only if designated as “attorneys’ eyes only” pursuant to a protective order. See Reply I.S.O.
24
Mot. To Seal at 2.
25
//
26
//
27
//
28
//
1
The Court hereby ORDERS the parties to meet and confer, no later than February 21, 2013,
2
regarding a protective order that can be entered in this case.1 The Court further ORDERS that the
3
parties shall file a proposed protective order for the Court’s review no later than February 22, 2013.
4
Once a protective order is entered, Defendant shall have three days to designate Exhibits A and B as
5
it sees fit and to produce unredacted versions to Plaintiff’s attorneys. To the extent Plaintiff wishes
6
to dispute Defendant’s designations for Exhibits A and B, it may do so through the normal processes
7
that will be included in the protective order. In the meantime, however, Plaintiff’s attorneys will
8
have access to the exhibits so that a response to the motion to dismiss can be submitted
9
expeditiously.2
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
DATED this 21st day of February, 2013.
12
13
______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
The Court notes that protective orders are fairly routine and almost never require Court
intervention. The Court stresses that the parties must make every effort to resolve any differences
regarding the protective order amongst themselves. To the extent the dispute between the parties
concerns the designation Defendant will choose for Exhibits A and B, that should be resolved after the
entry of a protective order and is not grounds for failing to enter the protective order.
2
To the extent Plaintiff believes it requires an extension for its response to the motion to
dismiss, see, e.g., Mot. at 5, that is an issue properly addressed to District Judge Mahan through a
separate motion or stipulation.
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
