Rouviere v. Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc.

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: January 11, 2025
• Docket: 1:18-cv-04814
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

BARNES & THORNBURG ue . Meridian Stree USDC SDNY Indianapolis, IN 46204-3535 □□□□□□ DOCUMENT (317) 236-1313 ELECTRONICALLY FILED Fax GI) S1ETSS DOC #: www.btlaw.com ILL DATE FILED: 1/11/25 317-231-7729 jt-larson@btlaw.com MEMORANDUM ENDORSED January 10, 2025 Via Electronic Court Filing Honorable Gregory H. Woods Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street New York, New York 10007-1312 Re: Rouviere v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., et al., Case No: 1:18-cv-04814-GHW-GS

Dear Judge Woods: We represent DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. (“DePuy”) (now known as Medical Device Business Services, Inc.) in the above-referenced matter. We write jointly on behalf of DePuy and Howmedica Osteonics Corp. (“Stryker”, together with DePuy, “Defendants”). On Monday, January 6, 2025, Plaintiff Jodi Rouviere (“Plaintiff”) served on Defendants an omnibus reply brief (the “Reply”) to Defendants’ opposition briefs (ECF Nos. 379, 380, 381 and 383) to Plaintiff's Motion for Relief of Judgment (ECF No. 364, the “Vacatur Motion”) and Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (ECF No. 373, the “Evidentiary Hearing Motion”). The Reply has not yet been filed on the docket, but Plaintiff has represented to Defendants that she mailed a copy of the Reply to the Court’s pro se office for filing on the date of service. A copy of the Reply is attached hereto at Exhibit A. In her Reply, Plaintiff raises new arguments and allegations not previously raised in either the Vacatur Motion or the Evidentiary Hearing Motion, principally that Second Circuit Judge Reena Raggi should have been disqualified based on income she received from her late husband’s firm, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, which has represented Stryker in separate litigation. See Reply at □□□□ In addition, Plaintiff makes new allegations of unethical conduct against Judge Liman, Judge Aaron, and counsel to Defendants. Issues raised for the first time on reply are generally deemed waived. See, e.g., Gomez v. Resurgent Cap. Servs., LP, 129 F. Supp. 3d 147, 159 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). Nonetheless, Defendants

Atlanta Boston California Chicago Delaware Indiana Michigan Minneapolis Nashville New Jersey

January 10, 2025 Page 2

respectfully request the opportunity to jointly file a short sur-reply in order to address these new arguments and allegations, by no later than January 17, 2025.

Respectfully submitted, J.T. Larson, Esq.

ce: Jodi Rouviere Paul E. Asfendis, Esq.

granted. Defendants’ request for leave to file a joint sur-reply, Dkt. No. 387, is granted. Defendants are leave to file a five-page sur-reply by no later than January 17, 2025. ‘The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate | pending at Dkt. Nos. 384 and 387. SO ORDERED. Dated: January 11, 2025 New York, New York GR . WOODS United States District Judge

MmaARAIT 0 FI TL AAPA IRs im