Legal Opinion

Intervet, Inc. v. Merial Ltd.

District Court, District of Columbia

Decided September 3, 2008No. Civil Action No. 1:06-cv-00658 (HHK/JMF)PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JOHN M. FACCIOLA, United States Magistrate Judge.

Before me is Merial Limited and Merial SAS’ Omnibus Motion to Compel Plaintiff Intervet Inc. to Respond to Discovery.

I. Restricted Definition of “PCV-2”

a. Facts

First presented by Merial’s motion is whether Intervet can restrict the meaning of a term in an interrogatory to the definition that Judge Kennedy used in his Memorandum Opinion and Order of November 28, 2007. Memorandum in Support of Merial Limited and Merial SAS’ Omnibus Motion to Compel Plaintiff Intervet Inc. to Respond to Discovery at 4-6 (“Def.Mem.”).

As Judge…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Edward H. Phillips v. Awh Corporation, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., and Lofton Corporation, Defendants-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
  2. In Re Sealed CaseCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1989
  3. Katz v. AT & T Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2000
  4. Minebea Co., Ltd. v. PapstDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2005

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Witt v. GC Services Ltd. PartnershipDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 2014
  2. In Re PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG LITIGATIONDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2011
  3. Enviro Tech Chemical Services Inc v. Safe Foods CorporationDistrict Court, E.D. Arkansas · 2024
  4. Prasad v. George Washington UniversityDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2017
  5. United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. George Washington UniversityDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2020

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API