CHATOM PRIMARY CARE, P.C. v. MERCK & CO., INC.

E.D. Pennsylvania

CHATOM PRIMARY CARE, P.C. v. MERCK & CO., INC.

DecidedJuly 27, 2023

Docket2:12-cv-03555

StatusUnknown

This text of CHATOM PRIMARY CARE, P.C. v. MERCK & CO., INC. (CHATOM PRIMARY CARE, P.C. v. MERCK & CO., INC.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

CHATOM PRIMARY CARE, P.C. v. MERCK & CO., INC., (E.D. Pa. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: MERCK MUMPS VACCINE : ANTITRUST LITIGATION : : CIVIL ACTION : Master File No. 12-3555 : : : THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: : ALL ACTIONS :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 27th day of July 2023, upon consideration of Defendant Merck’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 272) and Defendant Merck’s Motion to Exclude Evidence from Dr. Thomas Copmann Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert (ECF No. 305), along with the responses and replies thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum: 1. Defendant Merck’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 272) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Judgment is ENTERED in favor of Defendant Merck on Count II (i.e., the NYDAPA and NJCFA claims), and therefore, Count II is DISMISSED IN FULL AND WITH PREJUDICE. 2. Defendant Merck’s Motion to Exclude Evidence from Dr. Thomas Copmann Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert (ECF No. 305) is DENIED. 3. The accompanying Memorandum shall remain under seal for seven days. Any party or non-party seeking to preclude public access to the accompanying Memorandum shall show particularized good cause1 in a memorandum not exceeding five pages to be filed no later than 12:00 p.m. on August 3, 2023 as to why the Court should preclude public access as to each word/line sought to be precluded from public access and shall email the underlying Memorandum with the proposed redactions to Chambers

contemporaneous with filing the show cause memorandum.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Chad F. Kenney

CHAD F. KENNEY, JUDGE

1 See Avandia Mktg., Sales Pracs. & Prod. Liab. Litig., 924 F.3d 662 (3d Cir. 2019) (explaining that a party seeking to overcome the presumption of access to a judicial document bears the burden of showing “that the interest in secrecy outweighs the presumption” and that “the material is the kind of information that courts will protect and that disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking closure”); see also In re: Application of Storag Etzel GmbH for an Order, Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, to Obtain Discovery for Use in a Foreign Proceeding, No. 19-mc-209-CFC, 2020 WL 2949742 (D. Del. Mar. 25, 2020).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: MERCK MUMPS VACCINE : ANTITRUST LITIGATION : : CIVIL ACTION : Master File No. 12-3555 : : : THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: : ALL ACTIONS :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 27th day of July 2023, upon consideration of Defendant Merck’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 272) and Defendant Merck’s Motion to Exclude Evidence from Dr. Thomas Copmann Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert (ECF No. 305), along with the responses and replies thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum: 1. Defendant Merck’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 272) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Judgment is ENTERED in favor of Defendant Merck on Count II (i.e., the NYDAPA and NJCFA claims), and therefore, Count II is DISMISSED IN FULL AND WITH PREJUDICE. 2. Defendant Merck’s Motion to Exclude Evidence from Dr. Thomas Copmann Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert (ECF No. 305) is DENIED. 3. The accompanying Memorandum shall remain under seal for seven days. Any party or non-party seeking to preclude public access to the accompanying Memorandum shall show particularized good cause1 in a memorandum not exceeding five pages to be filed no later than 12:00 p.m. on August 3, 2023 as to why the Court should preclude public access as to each word/line sought to be precluded from public access and shall email the underlying Memorandum with the proposed redactions to Chambers

contemporaneous with filing the show cause memorandum.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Chad F. Kenney

CHAD F. KENNEY, JUDGE

1 See Avandia Mktg., Sales Pracs. & Prod. Liab. Litig., 924 F.3d 662 (3d Cir. 2019) (explaining that a party seeking to overcome the presumption of access to a judicial document bears the burden of showing “that the interest in secrecy outweighs the presumption” and that “the material is the kind of information that courts will protect and that disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking closure”); see also In re: Application of Storag Etzel GmbH for an Order, Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, to Obtain Discovery for Use in a Foreign Proceeding, No. 19-mc-209-CFC, 2020 WL 2949742 (D. Del. Mar. 25, 2020).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

CHATOM PRIMARY CARE, P.C. v. MERCK & CO., INC., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chatom-primary-care-pc-v-merck-co-inc-paed-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack