But it appears most of them are parties' "eyes only". I don't care about the motions, nearly so much -- but we have been waiting since September of 2023 for a redacted copy of the pre-trial order, here. And as we've long said, that is a fundamental right of we the people -- to see (in real time, at least redacted) public record filings (judicial records) in our courts of law.
That these vast multi-national commercial parties to a multi-billion dollar piece of litigation. . . have yet to make available on the public dockets (even in a redacted form). We've been patient, but as the motion practice heats up, it is clear this burp-fest is being positioned for a federal trial. And possibly one of the largest trials ever, in the NJ USDC. So, we will begin a more aggressive campaign to get the able trial judge to make specific findings on the record, in open court, if the intent is to keep this civil pre-trial commercial order hidden from public view.
Indeed, as we've long said, Davis, Wright & Tremaine (in the recent past, in other newsworthy commercial cases) repeatedly litigated for access -- all along the eastern seaboard, and those rules clearly apply here -- in this litigation. Hearings and specific findings on the record must come next. Then a redacted version, for it cannot reasonably be believed that not one page of the as-filed pre-trial order in this decade long, vast litigation docket has properly disclosable Amendment One material. It simply cannot be.
We may go silent on this topic for a bit -- as we seek out some of the DWT equity partners we are long acquainted with. This is NYT level important public concern stuff [See, for example, Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1310-12 (11th Cir. 2001); Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)].
It needs to be made. . . public (except for trade secrets).
UPDATED --06.25.2024 @ 2PM EDT: By a one page letter, counsel for the German Merck just informed USDC Judge Salas that the parties will be filing public, but redacted, versions of all documents shortly -- with a schedule for the same being proposed to the court, yet this evening. That Pretrial Order from September 2023 ought to be on the schedule, too. Indeed. Stay tuned.
नमस्ते
1 comment:
As of June 26, 2024, USDC Magistrate Judge Hammer has so Ordered the below:
. . .The Parties have met-and-conferred and believe that any Opinions on the in limine Motions are likely to implicate the same confidential material at issue in the temporary sealed filings mentioned above. Accordingly, the Parties respectfully request that the deadline to file the aforementioned consolidated Motion to Seal be extended until 14 days after all of the in limine Motions have been resolved. The Parties believe that this will be more efficient, because, at that time, the Parties will file one consolidated Motion to Seal that addresses the briefing as well as any portion of the Court’s Opinions on the in limine Motions that the Parties may seek to keep under seal. . . .
Now you know. So we wait a tic longer. Grin.
Post a Comment