(617) 439-9800
In a Lanham Act case involving claims of false advertising and trademark dilution, PSD represents Braintree Laboratories, a leading manufacturer of colonoscopy prep medicine. During discovery, PSD won multiple issues on a motion to compel, then won two motions to enforce, and then won an appeal from those rulings by Ferring Pharmaceuticals. After a Magistrate Judge overruled a list of objections by Ferring, Braintree pursued two motions to enforce those rulings as Ferring continued to protest the scope of them. The Magistrate Judge required Ferring to produce an affidavit showing what it had done to comply with discovery rulings. Based on that affidavit, Braintree argued that the rulings required more of Ferring. The Magistrate Judge agreed. After an appeal by Ferring, on February 29, 2016, the District Judge agreed as well, affirming all of the Magistrate’s rulings in Braintree’s favor. The Court also limited the financial information to which Ferring was entitled based on delays by its counsel in pressing their requests: 160229 Memorandum and Order
PSD won two fee awards for both the cost of bringing a discovery motion and, after the Court required the use of broad search terms by the opposing party, a second award for fees incurred for time spent reviewing an ensuing production: 160203 Order Awarding Attorneys’ Fees 160209 Order granting attorneys’ fees