§Why CasetextPricing

Burlington Drug Co., Inc. et al v. Pfizer Inc. et al

MEMORANDUM & ORDER granting End-Payor Plaintiffs 377 Motion to Compel; granting in part and denying in part 378 Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs Motion to Compel as set forth in the Memorandum; Ordering Defendants to produce responsive documents within 30 days of entry of this Order. Signed

4 Cited authorities

  1. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 273,590 times   368 Legal Analyses
    Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing

  2. Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Actavis, Inc.

    570 U.S. 136 (2013)   Cited 310 times   92 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "reverse payment settlements . . . can sometimes violate the antitrust laws"

  3. In re Neurontin Antitrust Litig.

    MDL No. 1479 (D.N.J. Aug. 8, 2013)   Cited 4 times

    MDL No. 1479 Master Docket No. 02-1390 (FSH) 08-08-2013 IN RE NEURONTIN ANTITRUST LITIGATION Faith S. Hochberg NOT FOR PUBLICATION Hon. , U.S.D.J. OPINION HOCHBERG, District Judge: This matter comes before the Court upon Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 515], and Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Docket Nos. 514, 517] and Motion to Strike [Docket No. 545]. I. BACKGROUND "Defendants" are Pfizer Inc. and Warner-Lambert Co. (collectively "Pfizer" or Defendants). "Plaintiffs"

  4. Rule 1 - Scope and Purpose

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 1   Cited 15,441 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"