ABOUT RIGHT OF ASSEMBLY

Right of Assembly is my personal blog. All opinions are my own. You can read more about me here.

DISCLOSURE

I am a ChromaDex shareholder, and an affiliate marketer. As a result, I will sometimes mention or recommend products that I endorse. I may earn a small commission from qualifying purchases if you were referred directly from this site and completed a purchase. [Thank you!] You can read more about our advertising, privacy, and data collection policies here. 

Cookies

This site uses cookies. Cookies are not required for site functionality. You can read more about how to opt-out of cookies here.

  • Shelly Albaum

Elysium's Reply on Ex Parte Clawback


Elysium has filed a reply brief reasserting its right to claw back three spreadsheets that it wish it had not produced. You can read the Reply Brief here:

Elysium's Reply Brief to Claw Back

We covered Elysium's original ex parte application here, and ChromaDex's opposition here.

Elysium argues in its reply that

ChromaDex apparently deems itself entitled to rely on its own determination of what is and is not privileged and demands that Elysium and the Court take ChromaDex at its word that it will not review portions it deems privileged. Yet it cites no authority for its position that Elysium’s privilege determinations should be delegated to opposing counsel.

That is not my understanding of ChromaDex's argument, though. I thought what ChromaDex was saying is just the opposite -- that ELYSIUM has to identify what is privileged and has failed to do so, NOT that ChromaDex should do so.

Is Elysium entitled to claw back hundreds of thousands of text messages simply because Elysium alleges that a single unspecified message is privileged?

We'll see what Magistrate Judge McCormick has to say.

#CDXC #ChromaDex #Litigation #ElysiumHealth

107 views