Primed Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Starr Indemnity & Liability Company
- Sarah Cave
- 1:21-cv-01025
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Primed Pharmaceuticals v. Starr, Judge Cave granted in part and denied in part a discovery motion about insurance-policy advertising evidence.
Primed Pharmaceuticals, LLC and Starr Indemnity & Liability Company, particularly their obligations concerning the limited discovery authorized by the court.
What happened
Primed Pharmaceuticals, LLC sued Starr Indemnity & Liability Company, and Primed asked the court to prevent discovery about evidence outside the insurance policy supporting Starr’s prior-publication exclusion.
The court allowed limited discovery about Primed’s advertising and advertising activities before November 15, 2014. The parties were ordered to discuss the scope of that discovery, including specified testimony, statements, and expert-report exhibits.
Judge Sarah L. Cave granted in part and denied in part Primed’s motion. She also scheduled a September 9, 2021 telephone conference about the discovery’s scope and directed the Clerk to close the motion.
The detailed version
- Primed Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Starr Indemnity & Liability Company · No. 1:21-cv-01025
- Sarah Cave
- Aug. 23, 2021
Background
Primed Pharmaceuticals, LLC filed a letter-motion asking the court to preclude, meaning prevent, discovery into evidence outside the insurance policy supporting Starr Indemnity & Liability Company’s prior-publication exclusion. The order followed a telephone conference held on August 23, 2021.
Ruling on Discovery
The court stated that Primed’s motion was granted in part and denied in part. The order permits narrow discovery concerning Primed’s “advertising” and “advertising activities” before November 15, 2014. It directs the parties to promptly meet and discuss the scope of that discovery, including: (1) Matthew Zeigler’s deposition testimony and exhibits; (2) statements concerning Primed in the Statement of Undisputed Facts and exhibits concerning Primed; and (3) exhibits to the reports of Dr. Gregory Bell.
Further Proceedings
The court scheduled a telephone status conference for September 9, 2021, concerning the scope of discovery. The parties did not have to file a status report or letter beforehand, but could submit one joint filing of no more than six pages if they chose. They could also jointly ask to cancel the conference if they reached agreement about the discovery scope. Judge Sarah L. Cave directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion listed as ECF No. 32. The order does not explain in the quoted text which part of the motion was denied.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.