Bausch & Lomb Inc. et al v. Vitamin Health, Inc.
| Bausch & Lomb Inc. and Wyeth LLC |
| Vitamin Health, Inc. |
| Vitamin Science, Inc |
| 1:2016mc00034 |
| January 26, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| New York |
| Part One |
| Other |
| M 08-85 Motion to Quash |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 25, 2016. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 10
ORDER GRANTING WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION TO QUASH VITAMIN HEALTH'S RULE 45 SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION TESTIMONY withdrawing 1 Motion to Quash. On February 25, 2016, non-party movant Vitamin Science, Inc. filed a NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION TO QUASH VITAMIN HEALTH'S RULE 45 SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION TESTIMONY. The Court hereby grants non-party movant's request to withdraw the motion to quash, without prejudice. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 2/25/2016) (kl)
|
| Filing 9 LETTER addressed to Judge Gregory H. Woods from Rocco S. Barrese dated February 10, 2016 re: New Return Date. Document filed by Vitamin Science, Inc. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Order)(Barrese, Rocco) |
| Filing 8 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge J. Paul Oetken from Rocco S. Barrese dated 2/04/2016 re: In re Subpoena Issued to Vitamin Science, Inc. Therefore, upon consent of the parties, it is respectfully requested that this Court grant an adjournment of six (6) weeks of the return date for the pending motion. In addition, and upon consent of the parties, it is also respectfully requested that the defendant be granted an extension of time of five (5) weeks to reply to the pending motion. ENDORSEMENT: Granted. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Part I Judge J. Paul Oetken on 2/04/2016) (ama) Modified on 2/4/2016 (ama). |
| Filing 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of MISCELLANEOUS CASE COVER SHEET, NOTICE OF MOTION TO QUASH VITAMIN HEALTHS RULE 45 SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION TESTIMONY, BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF NON-PARTY VITAMIN SCIENCES MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANTS RULE 45 SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION TESTIMONY and DECLARATION OF ROCCO S. BARRESE IN SUPPORT OF NON-PARTY VITAMIN SCIENCES MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANTS RULE 45 SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION TESTIMONY served on Vitamin Health, Inc. on 01/26/2016. Service was made by Mail. Document filed by Vitamin Science, Inc. (Barrese, Rocco) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Steven Carlton Kline on behalf of Bausch & Lomb Inc., Wyeth LLC. (Kline, Steven) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Peter DeForest Shapiro on behalf of Bausch & Lomb Inc., Wyeth LLC. (Shapiro, Peter) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Joshua Adam Davis on behalf of Bausch & Lomb Inc., Wyeth LLC. (Davis, Joshua) |
| Filing 3 DECLARATION of Rocco S. Barrese in Support re: 1 MOTION to Quash Subpoena. Other Court Name: USDC-WDNY. Other Court Case Number: 13-CV-6498 (JWF). (Filing Fee $ 46.00, Receipt Number 465401144338). Document filed by Vitamin Science, Inc. (wb) |
| Filing 2 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 1 MOTION to Quash Subpoena. Other Court Name: USDC-WDNY. Other Court Case Number: 13-CV-6498 (JWF). (Filing Fee $ 46.00, Receipt Number 465401144338). Document filed by Vitamin Science, Inc. (wb) |
| Filing 1 MOTION to Quash Subpoena. Other Court Name: USDC-WDNY. Other Court Case Number: 13-CV-6498 (JWF). (Filing Fee $ 46.00, Receipt Number 465401144338) Document filed by Vitamin Science, Inc. Return Date set for 2/16/2016 at 11:00 AM.(wb) |
| Case Designated ECF. (wb) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
