Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:19-cv-06593
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Edwards Lifesciences v. Meril Life Sciences, Judge Gilliam vacated the jury trial, set a conference, and allowed defendants to refile a summary-judgment motion.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., and the other parties to the case were affected by the changed trial schedule, case-management requirements, and permission to refile a summary-judgment motion.
What happened
In Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., the court addressed a complex case with several unresolved disputes. A jury trial had been scheduled to begin on February 7, 2022.
The court vacated that trial date and set a telephone case-management conference for January 31, 2022. It also reconsidered an earlier denial and granted the defendant permission to refile a motion for summary judgment about damages.
The parties were ordered to discuss possible spring trial dates and a briefing schedule, with briefing due within one month of the order. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order.
The detailed version
- Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. · No. 4:19-cv-06593
- Haywood Gilliam
- Jan. 26, 2022
Background
The court described the case as complex and noted that the parties had numerous outstanding disputes. A jury trial was scheduled to begin on February 7, 2022.
Orders Regarding Trial and Case Management
The court VACATED the scheduled jury trial date. It SET a further telephone case-management conference for January 31, 2022, at 11:00 a.m. The parties were directed to meet and confer before that conference about their availability for a trial in the spring. The opinion text lists that the court intended to choose from several spring dates, but the dates themselves are not included in the provided text.
Summary-Judgment Motion
The court reconsidered its earlier denial of the defendants’ administrative motion for leave to file a second motion for summary judgment. It found that allowing the proposed motion could clarify and streamline the issues for trial and advance the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of the lawsuit. The court therefore granted the defendant leave to refile the motion for summary judgment concerning damages.
If the defendant renewed the motion, the court required it to refile the documents previously submitted as Docket No. 214 without changes other than changing the noticed hearing date, by 5:00 p.m. on January 26, 2022. The parties were also directed to meet and confer and agree on a briefing schedule, with briefing completed no later than one month after the order. The court would schedule a hearing if necessary.
Disposition
The order vacated the jury trial date, set a case-management conference, and granted leave to refile the summary-judgment motion. It did not decide the merits of that motion or the underlying dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.