Justice Zinn - 2021-11-09
Read full decision. Summary prepared by Alan Macek:
The Plaintiff moves for leave to file a reply expert report ... The Defendants submit that the Proposed Reply Report is inadmissible as: “(1) it repeatedly expresses Dr. Hollis’ disagreement with Dr. Grootendorst’s opinion and analysis; (2) it repeats and attempts to bolster the opinions expressed in the Hollis Initial Report and Revision; and (3) it contains additions and revisions to the Initial Report and Revision that are not responsive to any new or unanticipated evidence.” It submits that the proposed reply is an attempt by the Plaintiff to split its case. ... In light of the above, only paragraphs 1 to 4, 8, 37 to 41, and 46 to 49 are admissible reply evidence. Paragraph 7, revised as necessary to include only the literature relied on in the other admissible paragraphs, is also admissible. As the Defendants have been largely successful in this motion regarding the substantive paragraphs of the Proposed Reply Report, they shall have their costs.
Decision relates to:
- T-815-17 - PHARMASCIENCE INC. v. MEDA AB ET AL