Legal Opinion
In re Vitamins Antitrust Litigation
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided October 21, 2002No. Misc. No. 99-197(TFH). MDL No. 1285PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Re: Roche-BASF-Rhone Defendants’ Rule 53 Objection
THOMAS F. HOGAN, Chief Judge.
Pending before the Court is the Rule 53 Objection of defendants F. Hoffman LaRoche Ltd., Roche Vitamins Inc., Hoffman-La Roche Inc., BASF AG, Rhóne-Poulenc Animal Nutrition S.A., and Rhone Poulenc S.A. (hereinafter the “Roche-BASF-Rhóne Defendants” or “Defendants”) to the Special Master’s Report recommending that plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Certain Defendants to Produce the Source Materials Underlying their Governmental Submissions and Rule 30(b)(6) Statements be granted in part and denied in…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Upjohn Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- In Re Sealed CaseCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1982
- In Re: Sealed CaseCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1997
- D. M. W. Contracting Co. v. StolzCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1946
- Washington Bancorporation v. SaidDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1992
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- In re Linerboard Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2006
- Cobell v. NortonCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2003
- Steptoe & Johnson LLP v. UBS AGDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2008
- Federal Trade Commission v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2012
- Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 2008
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.