Case Activity (378)

1. Order | Filed: September 11, 2026 | Entered: September 11, 2026 The Research Foundation for the State University of New York v. Inpria Corporation et al

   Contract: Other | New York Northern

   Order

   TEXT ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff has until September 25, 2026 to file and serve an appeal to Magistrate Judge Lovric's 392 , 416 Orders. Pursuant to N.D.N.Y. Local Rule 72.1(b), Defendants' opposition is due fourteen (14) days after the appellant's brief is filed and shall also include a memorandum of law responsive to the appellant's arguments. Appellant's reply brief is due 7 days after the appellee's brief is filed. The discovery schedule will be reset in due course. SO ORDERED by Chief Judge Brenda K. Sannes on 9/11/2026. (nmk)

2. Order | Filed: September 11, 2026 | Entered: September 11, 2026 The Research Foundation for the State University of New York v. Inpria Corporation et al

   Contract: Other | New York Northern

   Order

   TEXT ORDER: Pursuant to the Memorandum-Decision & Order at Dkt. No. 414 , this Court sets forth the following in furtherance of Text Order 392 and the on the record Hearing held on 8/28/2026. This Court granted Defendants motion for the continued deposition of Dr. Brainard pursuant to Defendants motions and reasoning as set forth in Dkt. Nos. 344 , 354 , 371 , & 387 . The Courts reasoning for granting this continued deposition of Dr. Brainard is further detailed herein, in addition to that already set forth in the text order and on the record. FIRST, Plaintiff willfully denied Defendants the opportunity and the right to thoroughly depose Dr. Brainard on 6/11/2026 as to all relevant matters. Plaintiff intentionally accomplished that by improperly withholding 170 relevant email communications between Dr. Brainard and LAM regarding highly relevant topics and issues in this litigation. Plaintiff waited until well after the Brainard deposition concluded and well after the close of the all Fact Discovery deadline to disclose the 170 Brainard communications. See Dkt. No. 387 -14. Plaintiff disclosed the highly relevant 170 Brainard emails on 8/24/2026 to Defendants, more than two months after the 6/11/2026 Brainard deposition and more than two months after the all Fact Discovery deadline expired on 6/18/2026. See Dkt. No. 387 -14 & Dkt. No. 267 . Furthermore, Plaintiffs improper actions and tactics violated this Courts Discovery Order at Dkt. No. 267 [repeated at Dkt. No. 339 ] and failed to comply with the 6/18/2026 Court ordered deadline for completion of all Fact Discovery. These relevant 170 email communications should have been disclosed to Defendants well in advance of the Brainard 6/11/2026 deposition. This willful maneuver deprived Defendants of their right to depose Dr. Brainard properly and thoroughly on critical matters and core issues to this litigation. SECOND, Plaintiff willfully denied Defendants the opportunity and the right to depose Dr. Brainard as to the matters contained in the improperly clawed back 13 documents. Plaintiff clawed back these 13 documents on 6/10/2026, on the eve of the Brainard 6/11/2026 deposition. See Dkt. No. 354 -2. The materials clawed back were done so improperly. At least two of the documents were previously already used in the deposition of Plaintiffs witness Ross Goodman on 5/13/2026 with no objections from counsel for Plaintiff. Id. On 6/17/2026, Plaintiff clawed back an additional 17 documents. Id. All of the clawed back documents dealt with Dr. Brainards association, communication, and work with LAM. All of the clawed back documents are not privileged in this litigation. Additionally, any privilege that may have existed as to these documents at one time, while in LAMs possession, were waived once disseminated to third-party Research Foundation. Plaintiff, having improperly clawed back these documents, deprived Defendants of their right to depose Dr. Brainard properly and thoroughly on critical and core issues to this litigation. THIRD, counsel for Plaintiff improperly instructed Dr. Brainard not to answer questions on the basis of privilege. See Brainard deposition at Dkt. 344 -2. Any privilege that may have existed, at one time in the past, had been waived by production of discovery documents by Plaintiff to Defendants on the very matters and topics questioned at deposition by counsel for Defendant. See Dkt. Nos. 354 -2 &

3. 376 additional result(s)