Case Activity (33190)

1. Order | Filed: July 16, 2026 | Entered: July 16, 2026 Connecticut et al v. Sandoz, Inc. et al

   Anti-Trust | Connecticut

   Order

   ORDER: It is time to discuss the trial involving all Defendants as to whom the Court has denied summary judgment with respect to the overarching conspiracy claim; while the Court expects to address the remaining SJ motions in the near future, it appears at this point that there will be a trial of that claim (and the associated claims alleging individual conspiracies between the alleged overarching conspirators) and it is time to begin preparing. Accordingly, on or before July 31, 2026, all parties who expect to be involved in that trial—specifically, the States and any Defendant as to whom I have not granted SJ on the overarching conspiracy claim or that has not informed the Court, through the mediator, that it has at least reached a settlement in principle—shall meet and confer and shall jointly file a statement addressing the following:
   

   1. The expected length of the trial, including an estimate of the number of trial days needed to present each side's case. For purposes of these estimates, the parties should consider the following: (1) except for the day of jury selection, the Court's trial day begins at 9:30 am and ends at 4:00 pm, with a 15-minute break at 11:15 am and a one-hour lunch break at 1:00 pm; the Court holds trial Monday through Friday; (2) the Court's typical practice is to resolve major evidentiary issues before trial through one or more pretrial conferences; (3) the parties should assume that, generally, cross-examination will not significantly exceed direct examination; (4) the Court does not allow re-cross examination unless something new comes up on redirect.
   
   2. Coordination by defense counsel to avoid duplicative examinations and presentations and to avoid wasting the Court's and the jury's time. Specifically, the Court expects the Defendants to propose mechanisms to avoid duplicative efforts and examinations, which will generally mean avoiding having more than one team-designated defense lawyer handle objections and cross-examine a witness. The Defendants need not identify specific tasks to be performed by specific lawyers at this point; but they should make a general proposal as to how they anticipate avoiding duplicative presentations and wasting the Court's and the jury's time.
   
   3. An estimate of the number of witnesses each party (including each Defendant) at the trial expects to call. Absent good cause, each witness will testify at one sitting, i.e., the Court will not permit the recalling of witnesses.
   
   4. Identification by (1) the States, and (2) the Defendants of up to three opposing experts per side as to whom they believe that pre-trial Daubert hearings are necessary. All parties should understand—and the Court's Daubert rulings in connection with the summary judgment motions should provide some indication of this—that the Court adheres to the view that "[w]hile Rule 702 and cases in the Daubert/Kumho line cast the trial judge in the role of gatekeeper, they also warn against keeping a heavy hand on the gate." MacDermid Printing Solutions, Inc. v. Cortron Corp., 2014 WL 2616836, at *3 (D. Conn. June 12, 2014) (citing cases). The 2023 amendments to Rule 702, which the Advisory Notes describe as "clarify[ing]," have not materially altered this basic view. It remains the case that "vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence." Daubert, 509 U.S. 579, 596 (1993). With that said, if the parties believe Daubert hearings are necessary—and not just strategically useful, for example, to make up for a short deposition or lock in an expert as to certain issues—with respect to some opposing experts, then the States may collectively designate up to three and the Defendants may designate up to three.
   
   5. The number of depositions the parties expect to designate and how the parties propose to present such deposition testimony. Keep in mind that the Court's preference is to have all witnesses who are available, including all party witnesses and all witnesses within the subpoena power of the Court, testify live. So unless there is a very good reason to do so—which reason the parties shall explain—the Court does not expect to receive designations for available witnesses. The Court does not expect the parties to provide designations by July 30.
   
   6. The number of counsel each party at trial would like to have sit at counsel tables during the trial. Realistically, the numbers will be dictated by the dimensions of the Courtroom but the Court would like to obtain some idea of what the parties have in mind. Other counsel may sit in the pews.
   
   7. Please note that the Joint Trial Memorandum will be governed by the undersigned's Joint Trial Memorandum Instructions. See https://w... (truncated)

2. Order | Filed: July 16, 2026 | Entered: July 16, 2026 IN RE: GENERIC PHARMACEUTICALS PRICING ANTITRUST LITIGATION

   Other Statutes: Anti-Trust | Pennsylvania Eastern

   Order on Motion for Order

   ORDER THAT DIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER GRANTING: (1) REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES; (2) PAYMENT OF SERVICE AWARDS; AND (3) A ONE-THIRD SET ASIDE OF THE GLENMARK SETTLEMENT FUND AND OF THE GREENSTONE AND PFIZER SETTLEMENT FUND 3828 IS GRANTED. SIGNED BY DISTRICT JUDGE CYNTHIA M. RUFE ON 7/16/26. 7/16/26 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED TO LIAISON COUNSEL.(mbh)

3. 33188 additional result(s)