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

Parties Request Delay in New York


UPDATE 8/22/2019: Judge McMahon denied the parties' letter request for an extension, stating:

This case is already 2 years old. I will not adjourn sine die. I will push back all deadlines by 6 months, assuming the California trial actually happens. Keep me posted. If the California case settles I want to know it. If the trial date moves I want to know it.

("Sine Die" means without a set time to resume.) I'm not exactly sure the implications of Judge McMahon's response, but I think it means a six-month delay is approved, but the delay is contingent upon the California trial actually happening on schedule, and if it doesn't she might change her mind.

______________________________________________

ChromaDex today asked Judge McMahon to put the New York case on hold until after the trial in California. You can read the request here:

Letter Requesting Delay in New York

Current NY Scheduling Order

The timing of this request would appear very suspicious, given that ChromaDex has been in a hurry to advance the litigation, and TOMORROW MORNING there is a mandatory settlement conference in California.

So if you were thinking that maybe a settlement was brewing, you'd seriously consider putting other expensive case activity on hold.

And that might be the case.

But I doubt it.

I doubt it because as eager as Elysium might be (must be?) to settle, it doesn't make a huge amount of sense for ChromaDex, and in fact if ChromaDex was eager to tell their story to a jury in California, they'd be even more eager to tell their story in New York.

Moreover, if you look at the actual deadlines in the current New York scheduling order, they are hitting RIGHT now during the critical trial prep period:

August 23: Document Discovery Due

October 11: Fact Depositions Due

October 25: Initial Expert Reports Due

All of that is between now and the trial, and both Cooley and Baker Hostetler would probably rather devote their resources entirely to trial prep, and I wouldn't blame them.

Indeed, the California trial might change the legal landscape significantly -- in a way that really could lead to a settlement -- which would be another reason to slow things down in New York.

So I think we should probably take ChromaDex at its word when it says,

"The parties anticipate adjourning the deadlines in the Case Management Plan, beginning with the August 9, 2019 deadline to amend pleadings, to between 60 and 90 days from the end of the California trial, and otherwise retaining the pace of the scheduled embodied in the Case Management Plan, to the greatest extent possible."

The upshot would be that trial in New York now looks more like summer 2020 instead of spring 2020, assuming Judge McMahon grants the request.

#CDXC #ChromaDex #ElysiumHealth #Litigation

0 views