EVIP Canada, Inc. v. Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, LLP
- Lewis Liman
- 1:18-cv-11456
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In EVIP Canada v. Schnader Harrison, Judge Liman approved deadlines for summary-judgment and expert-evidence motions.
The parties in EVIP Canada, Inc. v. Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, LLP, including the attorneys responsible for filing the scheduled motions and responses.
What happened
EVIP Canada, Inc. v. Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, LLP concerns a proposed schedule for upcoming motions in the case. The parties reported that private mediation had not resolved the dispute.
The parties asked the court to approve deadlines for summary-judgment motions and motions challenging expert evidence under Rules 702 through 705 and the Daubert standard. They proposed filing those motions by March 6, 2020, responses by April 17, 2020, and replies by May 8, 2020.
Judge Lewis J. Liman granted the application and approved the proposed schedule, subject to the page limits previously agreed by the parties. The order did not decide the merits of the dispute or any motion.
The detailed version
- EVIP Canada, Inc. v. Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, LLP · No. 1:18-cv-11456
- Lewis Liman
- Feb. 18, 2020
Background
The parties submitted a joint letter after an unsuccessful mediation conducted with a private mediator. The letter stated that the court had previously directed the parties to report whether mediation succeeded and, if necessary, propose a schedule for summary-judgment motions and motions concerning expert evidence under Federal Rules of Evidence 702 through 705 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Requested schedule
The parties proposed filing summary-judgment motions and Daubert-type motions by March 6, 2020. They proposed filing opposing papers by April 17, 2020, and reply papers by May 8, 2020. The letter also referred to page limits agreed to by the parties in docket entry 37.
Ruling
Judge Lewis J. Liman granted the application and approved the proposed briefing schedule. The order states that the filings could not exceed the page limits agreed to by the parties. This was a scheduling ruling; the court did not rule on summary judgment, the admissibility of expert evidence, or the underlying dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.