Cases

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued May 4, 2026 Decided July 31, 2026 No. 25-5200 ARTHUR SOOKRA AND APRIL BURCH-SOOKRA, ON BEHALF OF THEIR DECEASED MINOR CHILD TAYLOR ROSE SOOKRA, APPELLANTS v. PFIZER INC., ET AL., APPELLEES Appeal from the United States District Court for th

AMENDED ORDER APPROVING AMENDMENT AND DISTRIBUTION Timothy S. Black, United States District Judge Before the Court is the Joint Motion for Final Approval of Proposed Amendment to the Settlement and the Proposed Distribution (Doc. #3136) (“Joint Motion”).1 In considering the Joint Motion, the Court also has taken into consideration the presentations at the hear

49 Cal.4th 758 (2010) 111 Cal. Rptr. 3d 666 233 P.3d 1066 JAMES CLAYWORTH et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. PFIZER, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents. No. S166435. Supreme Court of California. July 12, 2010. *761 Alioto Law Firm, Joseph M. Alioto, Joseph M. Alioto, Jr., T

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT NO. 6 TED STEWART, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Pfizer’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ Claim that Defendants Have Misappropriated “Project” and “Compilation” Trade Secrets (Count VIII of the First Amended Complaint).1 I. BACKGROUND

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (FURTHER DISCOVERY SANCTIONS) BROOKE C. WELLS, United States Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the Court on Brigham Young University’s and Dr. Daniel Simmons’ (collectively BYU) Motion for Sanctions (Further Discovery Sanctions).1 This Court has held numerous hearings regarding discovery in this case and

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO PROVIDE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS LABELED AS CONFIDENTIAL UNDER THE PROTECTIVE ORDER BROOKE C. WELLS, United States Magistrate Judge. Before the Court is Plaintiffs Brigham Young University and Dr. Daniel Simmons (collectively BYU) Motion For Permission to Provide Certain Documents Labeled as Confidential Under the Protective Order.1

722 F.Supp.2d 453 (2010) In re: PFIZER INC. SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION. Master File No.: 09 Civ. 7822 (JSR). United States District Court, S.D. New York. July 13, 2010. *454 Ira M. Press, David E. Kovel, Edward Michael Varga, Kirby McInerney LLP, Gerald Harlan Silk, Jeroen Van Kwawegen, Mark Lebovitch, Noam Noah Mandel, Beata Gocy

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM DECISION GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS BROOKE WELLS, United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiffs Brigham Young University and Dr. Daniel Simmons (collectively BYU) have filed a motion for sanctions concerning discovery under Federal Rule 37(b) against Defendant Pfizer, Incorporated et al. BYU asks this Court to enter the following sanctions: (1) striking Pfizer’s Answe

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PATTI B. SARIS, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (“Kaiser”), Aetna, Inc. (“Aetna”), and Guardian Life Insurance Company (“Guardian”), collectively the Coordinated Plaintiffs, bring this case against Pfizer, Inc. and Warner-Lambert Company, alleging violations of the Racketeer Influ

927 F.Supp. 1036 (1996) Arthur Ray BOWLING, et. al., Plaintiffs, v. PFIZER, INC., et al., Defendants. No. C-1-91-256. United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division. May 24, 1996. *1037 Stanley Morris Chesley, Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley — 1, Cincinnati, OH, for Arthur Ray Bowling, Julie Whyle, Janet Bogges

BOYCE F. MARTIN, Jr., Chief Judge. Four hundred years ago William Shakespeare observed that lawyers “dream on fees.” During the ensuing centuries, few lawyers, even in their wildest dreams, have *779envisioned fees such as those that have resulted from mass tort litigation.1 Three separate parties in th

922 F.Supp. 1261 (1996) Arthur Ray BOWLING, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PFIZER, INC., et al., Defendants. No. C-1-91-256. United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division. March 1, 1996. *1262 Stanley Morris Chesley, Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co. — 1, Cincinnati, OH, for Arthur Ray Bowling, Julie Whyle, Janet Bo

102 F.3d 777 36 Fed.R.Serv.3d 391 Arthur Ray BOWLING, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,Jeffrey A. Crane, Gene Randall, Gerard Benedik,Intervenors-Appellants (96-3568)/Cross-Appellees,Stanley M. Chesley, Waite, Schneider, Bayless & ChesleyCompany, L.P.A., John T. Johnson, Johnson & Dylewski, JamesT. Capretz, Capretz & Radcliffe, Brian R. Magana, Magana,Cathcart & McCarthy, Charles M. W

OPINION BOYCE F. MARTIN, Jr., Chief Judge. This matter is making a repeat visit to the Sixth Circuit and has been the subject of numerous district court opinions. The remarkable aspect of this outpouring of judicial resources is that much of it occurred after the case settled. The bulk of the federal court oversight in this ease has concerned attorneys’ fees, and we now write again on this subject.

14 F.3d 600NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit. Arthur Ray BOWLING, et al., Plaintiff-Appellees,Elizabeth W. Ridgeway, et al., Class Members-Appellants,v.PFIZER, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees.

14 F.3d 600NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit. Arthur Ray BOWLING, et al., Plaintiff-Appellees,Elizabeth W. Ridgeway, et al., Class Members-Appellants,v.PFIZER, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees.

988 F.Supp. 686 (1997) PFIZER INC., Plaintiff, v. PERRIGO COMPANY and L. Perrigo Company, Defendants. No. 95 Civ. 5072(DC). United States District Court, S.D. New York. December 19, 1997. *687 *688 Hopgood, Calimafde, Kalil & Judlowe by Stephen B. Judlowe, William G. Todd, Porter F. Flemin

ORDER LIFTING STAY DENYING MOTIONS TO INTERVENE AND AUTHORIZING DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS SPIEGEL, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on: I. The Motion by the Pennsylvania Class Objectors for an Order to Alter or Amend Order Dated April 14, 1994 *494(doc. 871), the Plaintiff Class’s Response (doc. 378), the D

933 F.Supp. 377 (1996) PFIZER INC., Plaintiff, v. PERRIGO COMPANY and L. Perrigo Company, Defendants. No. 95 Civ. 5072 (DC). United States District Court, S.D. New York. August 6, 1996. *378 Hopgood, Calimafde, Kalil & Judlowe by Stephen B. Judlowe, William G. Todd, Porter F. Fleming, New York City and Pfizer Inc. (Paul H. Gi

STAPLETON, Circuit Judge, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. It may well be that the district court’s denial of Pfizer’s motion for summary judgment was in error. The issue before us, however, is whether Pfizer is entitled to interlocutory appellate review of that denial. Nothing in the First Amendment or Claiborne Hardware provides justification for our granting such review. More