Case Activity (8159)

1. Order | Filed: July 15, 2026 | Entered: July 15, 2026 ATCHLEY et al v. ASTRAZENECA UK LIMITED et al

   P.I.: Other | District Of Columbia

   Order on Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice

   MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of the 200 201 Motions for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice, it is hereby ORDERED that the motions are GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Lisa M. Noller and Lelia A. Ledain be, and hereby are, admitted pro hac vice in this case. Counsel should register for e-filing via PACER and file a notice of appearance pursuant to LCvR 83.6(a). Click for instructions. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 7/15/2026. (lcrjl1)

2. Order | Filed: July 15, 2026 | Entered: July 15, 2026 ATCHLEY et al v. ASTRAZENECA UK LIMITED et al

   P.I.: Other | District Of Columbia

   Order on Motion to Compel Set/Reset Deadlines

   MINUTE ORDER. Regarding the parties' 197 Joint Status Report and plaintiffs' 206 Motion to Compel, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART and it is further ORDERED that defendants' request for a stay is DENIED. District courts have "broad discretion to stay all proceedings in an action pending the resolution of independent proceedings elsewhere." Hisler v. Gallaudet Univ., 344 F. Supp. 2d 29, 35 (D.D.C. 2004). Courts consider four factors to determine whether to issue a stay pending appeal: "the likelihood that the party seeking the stay will prevail on the merits of the appeal"; "the likelihood that the moving party will be irreparably harmed absent a stay"; "the prospect that others will be harmed if the court grants the stay"; and "the public interest in granting the stay." Kurd v. Republic of Turkey, 630 F. Supp. 3d 164, 167-68 (D.D.C. 2022) (quoting Cuomo v. U.S. NRC, 772 F. 2d 972, 974 (D.C. Cir. 1985)). Here, defendants have not shown that they will be harmed absent a stay. "Mere litigation expense, even substantial and unrecoupable cost, does not constitute irreparable injury." Renegotiation Bd. v. Bannercraft Clothing Co., 415 U.S. 1, 24 (1974). That lack of irreparable harm is reason enough to deny defendants' request. See, e.g., EIG Energy Fund XIV, L.P. v. Petrleo Brasileiro S.A., 2018 WL 11392350, at *1 (D.D.C. Nov. 16, 2018). Plaintiffs, on the other hand, have waited years for their claims to be adjudicated on the merits. There is no compelling reason why discovery should be stalled while defendants await a decision on their anticipated petition for certiorari. Therefore, no stay will issue, and any ongoing prior stays of discovery are DISSOLVED. It is further ORDERED that the parties shall confer and submit a joint case management proposal by August 14, 2026. If any defendants intend to file additional motions to dismiss, they should include a proposed briefing schedule in the joint submission. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 7/15/2026. (lcrjl1)

3. 8157 additional result(s)