Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.OtherFiled Nov. 25, 2025

FTC et al. v. Quincy Bioscience Holding Co., Inc. et al.

Judge
Louis Stanton
Docket
1:17-cv-00124
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In FTC v. Quincy Bioscience, defendants asked Judge Stanton to allow discovery before ruling on the NYAG’s motion to enforce an injunction.

Who this affects

The defendants seeking discovery—Quincy Bioscience Holding Company, Inc., Quincy Bioscience, LLC, Prevagen, Inc., and Quincy Bioscience Manufacturing, LLC—and the New York Attorney General, whose motion to enforce the injunction is discussed.

What happened

In FTC et al. v. Quincy Bioscience Holding Co., Inc. et al., Quincy’s lawyers asked the court to set a discovery and briefing schedule, or hold a conference, before deciding the New York Attorney General’s motion to enforce an existing injunction. The letter says the motion concerns the advertising tagline “For Your Brain.”

Quincy argued that the tagline was not part of the original lawsuit, discovery, or 2024 trial. It said the New York Attorney General relied on a previously undisclosed expert report and consumer survey, leaving too little time to investigate the evidence and prepare a response.

The provided text does not contain a court ruling or show that the requested schedule was granted or denied. The letter is addressed to Judge Louis L. Stanton, who is identified as the district judge.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
FTC et al. v. Quincy Bioscience Holding Co., Inc. et al. · No. 1:17-cv-00124
Judge
Louis Stanton
Date
Nov. 25, 2025

Nature of the document

The provided text is a letter from counsel for defendants Quincy Bioscience Holding Company, Inc., Quincy Bioscience, LLC, Prevagen, Inc., and Quincy Bioscience Manufacturing, LLC. It asks the court to approve a proposed schedule for discovery and briefing concerning the New York Attorney General’s motion to enforce a judgment and obtain injunctive relief. In the alternative, the defendants ask for a conference to establish a schedule.

Background

The letter states that, on December 6, 2024, the court denied the parties’ motions to alter the judgment, affirmed the judgment entered on November 18, 2024, and ordered Quincy to stop using specified “Challenged Statements” in Prevagen’s marketing within a reasonable and practical time. The letter says Quincy removed those statements from its packaging and advertising and completed that process by the end of February 2025.

The defendants say their updated marketing used the tagline “For Your Brain.” According to the letter, the New York Attorney General first told Quincy on November 5, 2025, that it intended to seek an order barring that tagline because it allegedly implied one or more of the Challenged Statements. The New York Attorney General filed its motion on November 17, 2025, attaching an expert report and consumer-survey materials that Quincy says it had not previously seen. The letter says Quincy’s opposition deadline was December 1, 2025.

Defendants’ position

Quincy argues that the tagline was not part of the original complaint, the prior fact and expert discovery, or the 2024 trial. It characterizes the enforcement request as involving a new claim and argues that it should receive time to investigate the factual and expert evidence, depose the New York Attorney General’s expert, and submit rebuttal expert opinions.

The letter relies on the defendants’ view that consumer surveys may be important in evaluating an implied-falsity claim. It also argues that due process requires an opportunity to confront and question adverse witnesses when important factual decisions depend on their evidence. The letter further asserts that the New York Attorney General would not agree to the proposed schedule unless Quincy stopped using “For Your Brain.”

Disposition

The provided text does not include an order by Judge Louis L. Stanton and does not state whether the court granted, denied, or otherwise resolved the defendants’ scheduling request. It therefore shows a party request, not a judicial disposition.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.