Order | Filed: September 27, 2016
| Entered: September 27, 2016
Altaire Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al v. Paragon BioTeck, Inc.
Contract: Other | New York Eastern
Order(Other)
ORDER re Scheduling Order,,, 63 Letter filed by Paragon BioTeck, Inc., 61 Letter filed by Paragon BioTeck, Inc. Pursuant to discussions held with counsel in a conference call regarding a discovery dispute as to the timeliness and propriety of a subpoena seeking the testimony of a witness, the Court enters the following order. In a letter dated July 11, 2016, the parties set forth, with the required particularity, the status of discovery and described the discovery necessary for this matter to be trial ready. That letter proposed an agreed upon schedule, that was thereafter so ordered by this Court, stating (inter alia) that all fact discovery was to be complete by September 30, 2016. [DE 61]. That letter states that except for the taking of properly noticed depositions.... all fact discovery is now closed. After listing several witnesses that the parties apparently agreed to depose prior to the September 30, 2016 cut-off date, the letter states Altaires intent to subpoena a third-party fact witness (William Stringer) for deposition. While the parties agreed to the taking of listed fact depositions, the letter indicates that Paragon would be opposing that third-party fact deposition of Stringer. Altaire thereafter served a subpoena on Mr. Stringer (who is represented by Paragons counsel) in Tampa, Florida, on August 5, 2016. The subpoena sought to depose Mr. Stringer in Florida on August 20, 2016. The deposition did not occur because, after the parties conferred it became clear that, based upon Paragons opposition, Mr. Stringer would not appear. In addition to arguing that Stringers deposition is beyond the scope of permissible discovery, Paragon argues that the deposition is untimely sought. This Court rules here only as to the timeliness issue. Upon a review of the plain language of this Courts scheduling order as set forth in DE 61, the Court holds that the subpoena for the Stringer deposition was timely served, within the time frame set forth in DE 61, for the completion of fact discovery and denies any argument that the deposition is barred as untimely. The parties are granted until October 14, 2016, to either hold Mr. Stringers deposition, or to decide to engage in motion practice with respect thereto. In the event that Paragon decides to move to quash the subpoena on the merits, any such motion shall be filed on October 17, 2016. Any response thereto shall be filed on October 24, 2016. There shall be no reply. A courtesy copy of the fully briefed motion to quash shall be delivered to this Court by Paragon. This order does not alter any other previously ordered dates for discovery. As raised during the conference, the parties are in agreement that this Court shall have the authority to rule on the motion to quash, without any further reference from the Florida Court that issued the Stringer subpoena. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Anne Y. Shields on 9/27/2016. (Shields, Anne)