Case Activity (5055)

1. Order | Filed: July 28, 2026 | Entered: July 28, 2026 Sage Chemical, Inc. et al v. Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al

   Anti-Trust | Delaware

   Order on Motion to Strike

   ORAL ORDER: The Court has reviewed Defendants’ Motion to Strike (“Motion”), (D.I.  862 ), and the briefing related thereto, (D.I.  863 ; D.I. 864 ; D.I.  868 ).  With the Motion, Defendants request that the Court strike:  (a) each of Plaintiffs’ “Fed. Rule of Evid. 1006 [‘Rule 1006’] Compilation[s] of Select Record Evidence” (the “Compilations”) filed in connection with Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment; and (b) each corresponding exhibit referenced in the Compilations that is not otherwise cited by Plaintiffs in their summary judgment brief.  (See D.I. 862 at 1)  The Court hereby ORDERS that the Motion is GRANTED for the reasons that follow:  (1) Defendants argue that the Compilations must be stricken because they (a) violate the Court’s Orders regarding page limits for dispositive and Daubert motions and (b) do not merely summarize the record but instead amount to a cherry-picked grouping of document and deposition excerpts that Plaintiffs believe support their case, in violation of Rule 1006.  (D.I. 863 at 1; D.I. 868 at 1-2)  The Court agrees with both positions.; (2) Taking up Rule 1006 first, that Rule provides that the Court “may admit as evidence a summary, chart, or calculation offered to prove the content of voluminous admissible writings, recordings, or photographs that cannot be conveniently examined in court, whether or not they have been introduced into evidence.”  Fed. R. Evid. 1006; see also United States v. Lynch, 735 F. App’x 780, 785 (3d Cir. 2018).  Plaintiffs contend that the compilations comply with Rule 1006 because they “simply present Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ own words, identify the source for each entry, and leave argument for the brief.”  (D.I. 864 at 4)  But that is not what is happening here.  Instead, the seven compilations at issue each contain a title purporting to indicate what the summarized documents and witness testimony prove, list out handpicked excerpts from “[s]elect [r]ecord [e]vidence” and then further emphasize certain such excerpts in bolded print.  (D.I. 830 , exs. 133-39; see also D.I. 863 at 2-3)  For example, the compilation in exhibit 133 is titled “Compilation of Select Record Evidence [t]hat Defendants Agreed to and Effectuated an Anticompetitive Scheme to Delay and Restrain Generic Entry” and lists out 14 pages of selected excerpts of documents and witness testimony (some emphasized in bold) that purport to prove that key element of Plaintiffs’ claims.  (D.I. 830 , ex. 133; see also D.I. 864 at 1 (Plaintiffs noting that the compilations constitute “key admissions on topics central to Plaintiffs’ motion [for summary judgment]” including “Defendants’ agreement to restrain generic entry and conduct in furtherance of that agreement[.]”))  Thus, it is clear that Plaintiffs are not simply presenting a summary that accurately reflects the totality of volumin... (truncated)

2. Order | Filed: July 27, 2026 | Entered: July 27, 2026 Sage Chemical, Inc. et al v. Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al

   Anti-Trust | Delaware

   Oral Order

   ORAL ORDER: The Court hereby advises the parties that it intends to grant Defendants' Motion to Strike ("Motion"), (D.I. 862 ). It will issue an oral order at some point this week that sets out its reasoning as to why it grants the Motion. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 07/27/2026. (sam)

3. 5053 additional result(s)