And Meanwhile — In The West Coast Version — Of Merck Vs. Gilead Hep C (Patent Infringement Defense Legal Fees) Fight…

The very capable Judge Labson-Freeman, sitting in the federal district court for California’s Northern District (San Jose) has given Merck 10 days to explain more completely why (and how) the materials related to her fee award to Gilead ought to be hidden from public view.

This will all be highly salacious, I expect, if Merck does not prevail in the reconsidered sealing motion. But we shall see — and, bit from yesterday’s order, here:

. . . .For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motion at ECF 475 is DENIED without prejudice. Merck may renew its motion to seal and serve Gilead so to provide Gilead an opportunity to submit additional declarations in support of the motion. Civil L.R. 79-5(e). The motion shall be renewed no later than 10 days from the filing of this order. If the motion is not renewed in time or if no declaration is submitted within four days of the filing of the renewed motion, Merck shall file the unredacted documents in the public record. Civil L.R. 79-5(e)(1), (2). . . .

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 30, 2016

/S/ BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-04057-BLF Document 484 Filed 11/30/16 Page 3 of 3. . .

Now you know. We will run silently — for an indeterminate while, here — but hopefully, as well — for hope is the best of all things. . . [on an entirely unrelated topic, at nearly-Christmas-time 2016. . . smile.]

नमस्ते

Advertisements

There are no comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: