Just a minor procedural Thursday update here. In an overnight letter, both sides are requesting some more (purely interim) date extensions — probably in order to settle the argument over what’s known as “choice of law.” [Background here.]
Simply stated, this argument involves deciding which state(s) or federal laws will govern the interpretation of the dispute. It is also possible, but unlikely, that one side wishes for German law to apply (the German Merck). More on why I’d think that, tonight, or on another day — running to a lunch appointment, then meetings. Back late this afternoon. Here’s the request, in full:
. . . .We, along with Hogan Lovells, represent Plaintiffs Merck & Co, Inc., and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. in the above referenced action. We write, with the consent of Defendant Merck KGaA, to modify a deadline originally proposed in the parties’ Joint Discovery Plan filed on July 11, 2016 (D.E. 18).
Sections 6(h) and (i) of the proposed Joint Discovery Plan provide that if the parties are unable to reach agreement on choice of law, Plaintiffs’ motion regarding choice of law would be due on or before September 28, 2016, and Defendant’s opposition would be due on or before October 29, 2016. The parties have agreed, subject to Your Honor’s approval, to modify the deadlines to October 12 and November 14, 2016, respectively.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter. The parties look forward to meeting Your Honor at the initial [October 18] conference. . . .
[Signed by a Blank Rome partner]
Smiling widely, as I walk (seeing two locations, now). . . and I hope all is sanguine for all assembled this noon-hour. With all those unwasted graces, still a-flowing. . . . grin.