# INTERVET, INC. v. MILEUTIS LTD.

> District Court, D. New Jersey · February 28, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10274892

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. New Jersey
- **Decided:** February 28, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10274892

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that “Rule 30(e) challenges only face a heightened standard of review if they have the potential to affect summary judgment.”
- applying Pennypack to the late submission of an expert report, but in relevant part, considering whether an errata sheet complied with Rule 30(e) and “materially alter[ed]” the deposition testimony in question

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Civil Action No. 15-1371 (ZNQ)
INTERVET, INC.,

Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND

ORDER
v.

MILEUTIS LTD.,

Defendant.

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Intervet, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff” or “Intervet”) Motion to
Strike Errata (Docket Entry No. 139) to the Deposition of Dr. Panayiotis Constantinides.
Defendant Mileutis Ltd. (“Mileutis” or “Defendant”) filed an opposition to the Motion (Docket
Entry No. 146), and Plaintiff replied. (Docket Entry No. 147). Oral argument was held on
December 15, 2022. (Docket Entry No. 153.) Following oral argument, the parties submitted
supplemental briefs. (Docket Entry Nos. 158, 161, 170, & 171.) For the reasons that follow,
Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike will be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
I. BACKGROUND

The Court presumes a familiarity with the nature and history of this litigation. As a result,
not all factual details leading to the filing of this case are recited herein. Instead, the Court focuses
on the facts most relevant to the pending Motion.
Plaintiff commenced this action on February 23, 2015. (Docket Entry No. 1.) In the
Complaint, Intervet claims to “bring this action to establish that its termination of the License
Agreement was effective and proper, that it is not liable to Mileutis for any material breach of
contract, and that, pursuant to the terms of the License Agreement, it is not subject to any
continuing damages, any damages due to alleged negligence, or ‘any consequential or special
damages, any damages for alleged loss of good will, profits, anticipated sales, or the like.’” (Id.)
Mileutis claims that Plaintiff breached the License Agreement “and acted in bad faith by, among
other things, performing substandard development work.” (Docket Entry No. 140.)
On June 10, 2015, Defendant filed an Answer, Separate Defenses, Counterclaim and
Demand for Jury Trial (“Answer”). (Docket Entry No. 8.) In the Answer, Mileutis claims that

Intervet breached the License Agreement and acted in bad faith. (Id.) Specifically, Mileutis claims
that
part of the development plan required Intervet to conduct safety and
efficacy field trials for the prevention and cure indications in the
United States. Per the development plan, Intervet was required to
collaborate with Mileutis to develop protocols and assemble the
final reports for these pivotal clinical trials. However, Intervet failed
to collaborate with Mileutis, failed to communicate with Mileutis,
represented to Mileutis that it would have employees experienced
with biologics assigned to the project but assigned employees to the
study who had no experience with biologics, formulated more than
100 versions of CNH without input from Mileutis, neglected to
follow even standard required manufacturing processes, and
ultimately, ran a poorly designed and wholly flawed study in
California (the “California study”), misreported the results, and then
terminated the relationship with Mileutis based on the flawed
California study.

[Docket Entry No. 146.]

To support their claims, Mileutis retained Dr. Constantinides, an experienced expert
witness, to address “Intervet’s bad faith actions and inactions, breach of contractual obligations,
and its failed efforts at manufacturing, formulation and process development.” (Id.) Dr.
Constantinides was deposed on June 29, 2021. (Id.) At the time of the deposition, Dr.
Constantinides had allegedly spent between 100 and 200 hours working on this case. (Docket
Entry No. 140.)
On July 15, 2021, the court reporter informed Dr. Constantinides that his deposition
transcript was available. (Docket Entry No. 140.) The court reporter instructed Dr. Constantinides
to complete any errata and submit them to the court reporter and to Intervet within thirty-days.
(Docket Entry No. 140.) Mileutis alleges that Intervet’s counsel, Mr. Charles Cohen, Esq. and
Mileutis’s counsel, Ms. Jenna Gabay, Esq., agreed to an extension that allowed Dr. Constantinides
additional time to review his deposition transcript and prepare his errata sheet, through September

3, 2021. (Docket Entry No. 146.) Plaintiff’s counsel does not recall this oral agreement. (Docket
Entry No. 147.)
On August 2, 2021, the parties met with the Court for a Telephone Conference. (Text
Minute Entry dated 8/2/2021.) The parties were instructed to select a mediator and continue expert
depositions. (Text Minute Entry dated 8/2/2021.) On August 19, 2021, this Court entered an
Order of Designation for Mediation and administratively terminated the case. (Docket Entry No.
127.) All proceedings in this matter, except for discovery as agreed to by the mediator and counsel,
were stayed until October 29, 2021. (Docket Entry No. 127.) Due to the identification of a conflict
of interest of one of the parties with the selected mediator, Docket Entry No. 127 was rescinded.

(Docket Entry No. 129.) On August 23, 2021, the Court entered another Order of Designation for
Mediation. (Docket Entry No. 130.) Pursuant to the Order, all proceedings in this matter, except
for discovery as agreed to by the mediator and counsel was stayed until November 5, 2021.
(Docket Entry No. 130.)
On August 23, 2021, Dr. Constantinides signed and dated an errata sheet (the “Errata
Sheet”). (Docket Entry No. 140 and 146.) The Errata Sheet was not exchanged with Plaintiff
when it was obtained from Dr. Constantinides. (Id.) On October 27, 2021, the parties wrote to
the Court and advised that the mediation was unsuccessful. After reviewing this correspondence,
the parties were directed to confer and submit a joint proposed revised schedule to the Court by
November 12, 2021. (Docket Entry No. 132.) On November 16, 2021, the Court entered a Text
Order instructing the parties to complete all expert depositions by March 31, 2022. (Docket Entry
No. 133.)
On March 7, 2022, Mileutis served Dr. Constantinides’ Errata Sheet to Intervet. (Docket
Entry No. 140.) The Errata Sheet was served in conjunction with several other errata sheets and

deposition transcripts after Mileutis finalized charts for confidentiality designations for the
redacted transcripts and designations. (Docket Entry No. 146.)
On July 20, 2022, Plaintiff moved to strike Dr. Constantinides’ Errata Sheet. (Docket Entry
No. 139.) Defendant filed an opposition on August 23, 2022 (Docket Entry No. 146), and Plaintiff
replied on August 30, 2022. (Docket Entry No. 147.) The Court held oral argument on December
15, 2022. (Docket Entry No. 153.) During oral argument, Mileutis presented legal arguments that
raised novel, yet seemingly important issues from what the initial briefings had presented.
Accordingly, the parties submitted supplemental briefs for the Court’s consideration. (See Docket
Entry Nos. 158, 161, 170, and 171.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 30(e) governs changes to a deposition transcript, and provides:
(e) Review by the Witness; Changes.
(1) Review; Statement of Changes. On request by the
deponent or a party before the deposition is completed, the
deponent must be allowed 30 days after being notified by the
officer that the transcript or recording is available in which:
(A) to review the transcript or recording; and
(B) if there are changes in form or substance, to sign
a statement listing the changes and the reasons for
making them.
(2) Changes Indicated in the Officer's Certificate. The officer must
note in the certificate prescribed by Rule 30(f)(1) whether a review
was requested and, if so, must attach any changes the deponent
makes during the 30-day period.
“There are two components to this rule, which govern both the procedure and substance of
this process of correcting depositions through errata.” Bartos v. Pennsylvania, No. CIV 1:08-CV-
0366, 2010 WL 1657284, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 23, 2010). As a procedural matter, the rule permits
a deponent only “30 days after being notified by the officer that the transcript or recording is
available in which: (A) to review the transcript or recording; and (B) if there are changes in form
or substance, to sign a statement listing the changes and the reasons for making them.” F. R. Civ.
P. Rule 30(e). “Strictly adhering to these procedural time limits, court have frequently rebuffed
belated efforts by deponents to change their deposition testimony, particularly when those changes
are both tardy and clearly substantive.” Id. at *5 (citations omitted).
Alternatively, the substantive standards govern the type of corrections permitted through
errata sheets. Id.
Courts have diverged over whether the rule permits a deponent to
change the substantive content of his or her testimony or whether it
contemplates only ministerial changes to the transcript. Despite this
split of authority, district courts within the Third Circuit—like the
majority of tribunals to have addressed Rule 30(e)-generally permit
deponents to amend the content of their testimony.

[In re Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust Litigation, No. 08–MDL–
1935, 2009 WL 2045160, at *2 (M.D. Pa. July 9, 2009) (citations
omitted).]

Even those courts that generally permit deponents to amend the content of their testimony
utilize a formulation to distinguish “explanatory” errata, which are generally permitted, and
“contradictory” errata, which are not generally permitted. Bartos, 2010 WL 1657284, at *6.
Thus, it has been said that “the purpose of an errata sheet is to
correct alleged inaccuracies in what the deponent said at his
deposition, not to modify what the deponent said for tactical reasons
or to reflect what he wishes that he had said. Similarly, in construing
Rule 30(e) courts have been mindful that “[t]he Rule cannot be
interpreted to allow one to alter what was said under oath. If that
were the case, one could merely answer the questions with no
thought at all then return home and plan artful responses.
Depositions differ from interrogatories in that regard. A deposition
is not a take home examination.”

[Id. (emphasis in original) (internal citations omitted).]
To identify the purpose of the proposed errata to a deposition, the Third Circuit uses the
same test that applies when defining a “sham affidavit.” See EBC, Inc. v. Clark Bldg. Sys., Inc.,
618 F.3d 253, 270 (3d Cir. 2010). Courts are to review the errata sheet at issue and undergo a fact-
sensitive inquiry to determine “if sufficiently persuasive reasons are given, if the proposed
amendments truly reflect the deponent's original testimony, or if other circumstances satisfy the
court that amendment should be permitted.” Id.
III. ANALYSIS
In deciding whether to permit changes made to a transcript, the Court must first address
whether the proposed changes have met the procedural requirements set forth in Rule 30(e). EBC,
Inc. v. Clark Bldg. Sys., Inc., 618 F.3d 253, 265-6 (3d Cir. 2010). Next, the Court must “determine
the effect of the errata sheet on the deposition transcript.” Id. at 267.
A. Procedural Deficiencies
“The procedural requirements of Rule 30(e) are clear and mandatory.” EBC, Inc., 618 F.3d
at 265. Where a party or deponent has requested review of a transcript, he may “submit changes
to [the] deposition within thirty days after being notified by the officer that the transcript is
available for review.” Id. (quoting Rios v. Bigler, 67 F.3d 1543, 1552 (10th Cir. 1995) (alteration
in original)). It has been “emphasize[d] that Rule 30(e)'s thirty-day clock begins to run when the
party is notified by the court reporter that transcript is available for review, not when the party or
deponent physically receives the transcript from the court reporter.” Id. at 266 (emphasis in
original) (citing Hambleton Bros., 397 F.3d at 1224). “Although courts are split over whether to
allow substantive changes to a deposition, there is no debate that the procedural requirements of
Rule 30(e) must be adhered to.” Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 232 F.R.D. 491, 493 (E.D.
Pa. 2006) (internal footnote omitted)). Numerous courts have rejected changes to depositions

when the procedural requirements of Rule 30(e) were not complied with. Winston v. Marriott
International, Inc., CIV. 03 CV 6321, 2006 WL 1229111, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. May 8, 2006)
(excluding disputed errata sheet as utimely); see also Freedman v. Fisher, CIV. 13-3145, 2014
WL 5461488, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 28, 2014) (granting a motion to strike an expert’s errata sheets
on the basis that they “are untimely and would likely lead to a change in her testimony that might
lead to testimony that would be grossly unfair to [the] [p]laintiffs”).
Plaintiff argues that Dr. Constantinides’ changes to his deposition violate the procedural
aspects of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(e) and should be suppressed. The Court agrees that
Defendant has failed to meet the procedural requirements of Rule 30(e). Here, the deposition of

Dr. Constantinides was taken on June 29, 2021. (Docket Entry No. 140.) On July 15, 2021, the
court reporter emailed a copy of the transcript to Defendant’s counsel, along with a letter informing
Defendant that the Errata Sheet and acknowledgement page should be returned within thirty days
to both the court reporter and Plaintiff’s counsel. (Docket Entry No. 140.) The Court understands
Defendant’s position that the parties had allegedly agreed that Dr. Constantinides could have an
extension to review his deposition sheet and prepare the Errata Sheet through September 3, 2021.
(Docket Entry No. 146.) Dr. Constantinides then completed his review and the Errata Sheet prior
to the September 3, 2021, deadline, notarizing the Errata Sheet on August 23, 2021, which was the
same date that the Court administratively terminated the case to refer the parties to mediation.
(Docket Entry No. 130.)
Defendant argues that its late exchange of the Errata Sheet should be excused because it
was eventually transmitted to Plaintiff after the matter was reinstated. (Docket Entry No. 146.)
The stay of proceedings, however, was only in effect until November 5, 2021. (Docket Entry No.
130.) Even if Defendant’s claim that an extension to submit the Errata Sheet by September 3,

2021, was agreed upon by the parties is true, Defendant did not submit a copy of the Errata sheet
until March 7, 2022. (Docket Entry No. 140.) Defendant has provided no justification as to why
it waited an additional four months, until March 2022, to serve the Errata Sheet on Plaintiff. On
this basis alone, the Court finds there are justifiable grounds to exclude the admission of the Errata
Sheet due to untimeliness. See, e.g., Bartos, 2010 WL 1657284, at *17 (citing various cases where
proposed errata were denied due to untimeliness). Even though the Errata Sheet can be dismissed
on procedural grounds, the Court will still address the corrective and substantive changes made in
the Errata Sheet.
B. Substantive Changes

The standards governing substantive changes to errata has been articulated in EBC, Inc. v
Clark Building Systems, Inc., 618 F.3d 253 (3d Cir. 2010). In EBC, Inc., the Third Circuit has
instructed district courts to apply a “flexible approach” in determining when to permit or exclude
a contradictory errata sheet. Id. at 267. The Third Circuit cautioned that, in the summary judgment
context, “a party may not generate from whole cloth a genuine issue of material fact (or eliminate
the same) simply by re-tailoring sworn deposition testimony to his or her satisfaction.” Id. at 267-
68 (citing Hambleton Bros. Lumber Co. v. Balkin Enters., 397 F.3d 1217, 1225) (“While the
language of [Rule] 30(e) permits corrections 'in form or substance,' this permission does not
properly include changes offered solely to create a material factual dispute in a tactical attempt to
evade an unfavorable summary judgment.”) To require the district court “in all cases to permit
contradictory alterations could risk the defeat of summary judgment in a large swath of cases for
which a Rule 56 disposition otherwise would be appropriate. Preservation of the original
testimony for impeachment at trial serves as cold comfort to the party that should have prevailed
at summary judgment.” Id.

Notably, other courts within this Circuit have cautioned against permitting contradictory
Errata Sheets at the summary judgment stage. See Alcon Research Ltd. v. Barr Labs. Inc., CIV
No. 09-CV-0318, 2011 WL 13135574, at *7-8 (D. Del. Oct. 25, 2011) (noting that “[i]f deponents
could freely contradict their deposition testimony at the summary judgment stage, unscrupulous

parties may attempt to manufacture sham factual disputes through their contradictory testimony to
defeat otherwise proper summary judgment motions.”); see also ConsulNet Computing, Inc. v.
Moore, 631 F. Supp. 2d 614, 625-26 (E.D. Pa. 2008) (explaining that “Rule 30(e) challenges only
face a heightened standard of review if they have the potential to affect summary judgment.”).

Applying the flexible case-by-case approach, the Third Circuit has directed that a district
court may refuse “to consider proposed substantive changes that materially contradict prior
deposition testimony, if the party proffering the changes fails to provide sufficient justification.”
EBC, Inc., 618 F.3d at 268. At the same time, the court may, in its discretion, choose to allow
contradictory changes as the circumstances may warrant. That is, “nothing requires courts to strike
contradictory errata if sufficiently persuasive reasons are given, if the proposed amendments truly
reflect the deponent's original testimony, or if other circumstances satisfy the court that amendment
should be permitted.” Id. at 270. Each case will present fact-sensitive circumstances and there is
no one-size-fits-all rule.
From the outset, the Court notes that the parties have devoted considerable attention in
their supplemental briefs regarding whether this Court must engage in an additional analysis when
considering to strike the errata of an expert witness. Defendant argues that, where the errata of an
expert witness is involved, the Court must also consider the factors set forth in Meyers v.
Pennypack Woods Home Ownership Association, 559 F.2d 894 (3d Cir. 1977).1 (Docket Entry

Nos. 157 and 171.) Plaintiff responds that Defendant’s position is misguided and that the
Pennypack factors are not to be invoked when considering a motion to strike errata. (See Docket
Entry Nos. 161 and 170.)
The Court finds that Pennypack addressed similar, yet distinct issues. Pennypack

enumerated certain factors to be considered when deciding whether to exclude the testimony of a
late-disclosed witness. Since then, courts have utilized Pennypack to address other kinds of
untimely disclosures, including the production of late expert reports or expert testimony that
advances untimely legal theories and opinions. See ZF Meritor, LLC v. Eaton Corp., 696 F.3d
254, 298 (3d Cir. 2012) (excluding expert evidence as discovery sanction); Love v. Rancocas
Hosp., CIV. 01-5456, 2005 WL 6011252 at *1 (D.N.J. Mar. 31, 2005) (involving a motion to bar
an expert report produced by the plaintiff); Abbott Laboratories v. Lupin Ltd., CIV Nos. 10-1578,
10-2073, 10-2139, 10-2352, 2012 WL 1994477 (D.N.J. June 4, 2012)(addressing Pennypack for
an application to strike the plaintiff's expert report as untimely and in violation of the scheduling

order); Otsuka Pharm. Co. v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225464, *14 (noting
that “[t]he Pennypack analysis is most applicable to the enforcement of a final pretrial order, such

1 The Pennypack factors are: (1) The prejudice or surprise of the party against whom the excluded
evidence would have been admitted; (2) the ability of the party to cure that prejudice; (3) the extent
to which allowing the evidence would disrupt the orderly and efficient trial of the case or other
cases in the court; and (4) bad faith or willfulness in failing to comply with a court order or
discovery obligation. Pennypack, 559 F.2d at 905.
as where a party seeks to preclude testimony at trial of a witness not identified in the final pretrial
order”).

Defendant relies on an unpublished decision from the United States District Court of
Delaware, Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard, Incorporated, 2017 WL 11517421, at
*15–17 (D. Del. Nov. 7, 2017), where a Delaware Special Master applied Pennypack to a motion
to strike errata. A review of Acceleration Bay reveals that the Special Master did not refer to any
Third Circuit precedent to support his decision to apply Pennypack to a motion to strike errata. Id.
Without more, the Court finds that Acceleration Bay is not controlling. Indeed, the other cases
relied upon by Defendant appear to apply the Pennypack factors to the circumstances in which the

Third Circuit intended them—namely, motions to exclude the submission of untimely disclosed
evidence or testimony.2
Here, the Third Circuit appeared to leave no doubt when thirty years later it decided EBC,
Inc. v. Clark Building Systems, Inc., where it had been stated that:
This Court has not spoken previously regarding: (1) the extent to
which a party may establish a genuine issue of material fact by using
a deposition errata sheet; and (2) whether and when a District Court
may ignore a noncompliant errata sheet. Accordingly, we first take
the opportunity to address the contours of the rule governing errata
sheets. We then apply the standards we enunciate.

2 Defendant’s opposition brief cites to Nicholas v. Pennsylvania State Univ., 227 F.3d 133 (3d
Cir. 2000), for support that the Third Circuit applied the Pennypack factors on motions to exclude
expert testimony. The Nicholas decision applied the Pennypack factors to an untimely disclosed
fact. Further, Defendant’s supplemental briefs has referred to a handful of other cases within the
Third Circuit, none of which apply Pennypack to a motion to strike errata. See ConsulNet
Computing, Incorporated v. Moore, 631 F.Supp.2d 614 (E.D. Pa. 2008) (applying Pennypack to
the late submission of an expert report, but in relevant part, considering whether an errata sheet
complied with Rule 30(e) and “materially alter[ed]” the deposition testimony in question); see also
Federal Trade Comm’n v. Innovative Designs, Inc., 489 F.Supp.3d 378, n. 31 (W.D. Pa. 2020)
(applying Pennypack where a party failed to consider discovery deadlines in filing a motion for
leave to file a rebuttal expert report).
[618 F.3d at 264 (emphasis added).]
The Court will therefore limit its analysis to the standards established in EBC, Inc., supra,
assessing whether the "proposed substantive changes . . . materially contradict prior deposition
testimony" and if "the party proposing the changes fails to provide sufficient justification" for those
changes. Id. at 268. Other factors to be considered include: (1) whether the proffered justification

for a change is sufficient, (2) whether the earlier testimony reflects confusion that the errata
attempts to explain, (3) whether the errata is truly reflective of the initial testimony, (4) whether
deponent’s counsel had an opportunity to object or cross-examine the witness, and (5) whether
other fact sensitive circumstances justify the amendment. Id. at 270.
1. Unchallenged Changes
Dr. Constantinides’ Errata Sheet consists of both corrective and substantive changes. Of
those, there appears to be approximately eighty-eight changes that list transcription errors, spelling
errors, errors to “conform the facts” the record, and other errors to “clarify the record.” (See
Docket Entry No. 141, Ex. D.) These corrective changes appear to be unchallenged by Plaintiff.

In the absence of a specific challenge or objection, the Court will grant these Errata entries despite
the above-mentioned procedural deficiencies.
2. Challenged Changes

In addition to the corrective changes, Dr. Constantinides has proposed a number of
substantive amendments through his Errata Sheet. Akin to the approach set forth in Magistrate
Judge King’s recent decision in Patroni v. Harrah's Atl. City Operating Co., LLC, CIV. 18-15637,
2022 WL 2375721, at *8 (D.N.J. June 30, 2022), the Court will categorize the changes made in a
series of related “topics” to streamline the analysis.
Testimony Related to Contamination
First, Plaintiff argues that changes made in the Errata Sheet related to the contamination of
the California Study materially contradict prior deposition testimony. (Docket Entry No. 140.)
Plaintiff asserts that an important part of this case is to explain why Mileutis’ product, casein
hydrolysate ("CNH"), was not effective when Plaintiff had tested it in a study in California (the

“California Study”). (Docket Entry No. 140, at 8.) In explaining why the California Study may
not have been successful, Defendant argues that the CNH used by Plaintiff was contaminated. (Id.)
To support Defendant’s position, Dr. Constantinides has provided an expert report asserting that
one or more of the batches of CNH used in the California Study was contaminated and that it is
“[i]t is important to know the source of contamination in the [CNH] batch and how it could have
been prevented.” (Docket Entry No. 141, Ex. A, at ¶ 47.)
At page ten of the deposition, Dr. Constatinides appears to have stated that he would be
providing an opinion that one or more batches of CNH used in the California study were
contaminated.

[Page Ten]
12 Q. Okay. Dr. Constantinides, are
13 you offering an expert opinion in this case
14 that one or more of the batches of casein
15 hydrolysate used in the California study was
16 contaminated?
17 A. Yes.

[See Docket Entry No. 141, Ex. B, at 10:1-17.]

Dr. Constantinides stated the basis of this opinion was that “some vials [of CNH] were found to
be opened.” (Id. at 166:6-7.)
Yet, as the deposition continued, Dr. Constantinides appears to have admitted that he did
not know if any of the vials that he believes were found to be open were used in the California
Study. Pages eleven, twelve, thirteen, and fourteen of Dr. Constantinides’ deposition illustrate the
relevant exchanges concerning contamination of the California Study between Plaintiff’s counsel
and Dr. Constantinides during the deposition:
[Page Eleven:]
22 Q. And do you know if any of the
23 vials that were found to be opened were
24 actually used in the California study?
25 A. I don't know.

[Page Twelve:]
1 Q. So it's entirely possible that
2 the open -- that none of the vials that were
3 opened were actually used in the California
4 study, correct?
5 MS. DEL PIZZO: Objection.
6 A. I don't know.

. . .

18 And the answer to -- the answer
19 to the last question as to whether it was the
20 primary batch -- I'm sorry.
21 The answer to the last question
22 as to -- my question was: It's entirely
23 possible that none of the vials that were
24 actually found to be opened were used in the
25 California study, correct?

[Page Thirteen:]

1 MS. DEL PIZZO: Objection.
2 A. I don't know that. It's
3 possible, but I don't know.
4 QUESTIONS BY MR. FITZPATRICK:
5 Q. Okay. So you don't actually
6 know whether any of the vials used in the
7 California study were contaminated, right?
8 MS. DEL PIZZO: Objection.
9 A. That's correct. I don't know.
10 QUESTIONS BY MR. FITZPATRICK:
11 Q. Okay. You wouldn't -- you
12 wouldn't offer an opinion to a reasonable
13 degree of scientific certainty that any vial
14 used in the California study, any vial of
15 casein hydrolysate, was actually
16 contaminated, correct?
17 MS. DEL PIZZO: Objection.
18 A. I recall, again, seeing that
19 some were open -- some vials were found to be
20 opened, but no specifics about, again, which
21 batch and how many vials were found to be
22 open.
23 QUESTIONS BY MR. FITZPATRICK:
24 Q. Okay. So your recollection is
25 that there were some vials found to be open,

[Page Fourteen:]

1 correct?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. Do you know if those vials ever
4 even made it to California, the open vials?
5 A. I don't.
6 Q. Okay.
7 A. I don't.
8 Q. So you -- so in fairness, you
9 don't have any idea whether any vial of
10 casein hydrolysate used in the California
11 study was actually contaminated, correct?
12 A. Correct.

[See Docket Entry No. 141, Ex. B, at 16-19.]

Through the Errata Sheet, Dr. Constantinides has proposed the following changes to his
testimony:
Transcript Citation Original Updated Reason
p. 11, line 25 I don’t know As I testified on page I believe I did not
10, lines 12-17, and p. accurately hear counsel’s
166, lines 6-18, I am question when he
offering an expert appeared to ask a different
opinion in this case that question – but from the
one or more of the transcript, it looks like the
batches of casein same question a second
hydrolysate used in the time.
California study was
contaminated.
p.13, lines 2-3 I don’t know. It’s As I testified on page I believe I did not
possible, but I don’t 10, lines 12-17, and p. accurately hear counsel’s
know. 166, lines 6-18, I am question when he
offering an expert appeared to ask a different
opinion in this case that question – but from the
one or more of the transcript, it looks like the
batches of casein same question a third
hydrolysate used in the time.
California study was
contaminated.
p.14, lines 2-17 “I don’t. ..I As I testified on page I believe I did not
don’t…Correct…Yes 10, lines 12-17, and p. accurately understand
[sic] 166, lines 6-18, I am what counsel was asking,
offering an expert and thought he was
opinion in this case that saying he didn’t know to
one or more of the a question regarding
batches of casein specifically which vial he
hydrolysate used in the could recall was
California study was contaminated. But, as
contaminated. reflected in the
documents, including but
not limited to, those
marked MAH 00041214
and MAH00046663, I am
offering an expert opinion
in this case that one or
more of the batches of
casein hydrolysate used in
the California study was
contaminated.

(Docket Entry No. 141, Ex. D.)
In support of the Errata Sheet, Defendant argues that the proposed changes are
“clarifications consistent with [Dr. Constantinides’] original testimony and not an attempt to re-
write testimony.” (Docket Entry No. 146.) The Court disagrees. The proposed Errata Sheet add
material changes to the testimony to provide that Dr. Constantinides will be “offering an expert
opinion in this case that one or more of the batches of casein hydrolysate used in the California
study was contaminated.” (Emphasis added.) Dr. Constantinides has contradicted his unequivocal
answers to the questions in his initial testimony.3 Dr. Constantinides claims that he was unable to
understand questioning or experienced confusion is in conflict with the transcript. If Dr.
Constantinides did not understand or comprehend the questions asked, he had ample opportunity
to request clarification from Plaintiff's counsel on the record. Other portions of the transcript
reflects Dr. Constantinides willingness to request additional information when confused and

reflects the parties’ numerous breaks, as well as the presence of counsel. Accordingly, the above-
identified substantive amendments shall be stricken.
Testimony Related to Breaches of Contract
Second, Plaintiff contends that Dr. Constantinides’ amendments to the Errata Sheet

concerning Defendant's breach of contract claims materially contradict his prior testimony.
(Docket Entry No. 140, at 14.) For background—through his expert report—Dr. Constantinides
opines that “[Plaintiff] acted in bad faith and in breach of its contractual obligations by failing to
proactively communicate, collaborate and solicit input and hands-on assistance from Mileutis on
raw materials, CNH formulation and process development.” (Docket Entry No. 141, Ex. A, at ¶
61.) Dr. Constantinides has been retained as an expert witness to discuss Intervet's bad faith
actions and inactions, breach of contractual obligations, and failed manufacturing efforts. (Docket
Entry No. 146, at *1-2.)

Though Dr. Constantinides had initially stated that he was “opining that [Plaintiff]
breached this license agreement,” he later took the position that he would not be offering an

3 As raised by Plaintiff, the transcript reflects that when asked “[d]o you know if those vials ever
even made it to California, the open vials,” Dr. Constantinides answered “I don’t” twice. On his
opinion about contamination, when asked “[s]o you—so in fairness, you don’t have any idea
whether any vial of [CNH] used in the California study was actually contaminated, correct,” Dr.
Constantinides candidly responded “correct” twice. (See Docket No. 147, at 10.)
opinion as to the exact “terms of the agreement” that had been breached, as doing so was “beyond
the scope of [his] report” and “beyond [his] expertise”:

7 Are you opining that Merck
8 breached this license agreement?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Okay. Now, am I correct, in
11 your report, you don't actually point to any
12 terms of this agreement that you're claiming
13 were breached, correct?
14 MS. DEL PIZZO: Objection.
15 A. That's correct. That was
16 beyond the scope of my report.
17 QUESTIONS BY MR. FITZPATRICK:
18 Q. Okay. So you're not opining
19 about any specific terms of this agreement
20 that, in your opinion, were breached,
21 correct?
22 MS. DEL PIZZO: Objection.
23 A. Correct.
[Docket Entry No. 141, at 27:7-23.]
When Plaintiff's counsel inquired as to whether Dr. Constantinides would offer an expert
opinion regarding the precise terms of the agreement that may have been breached, he received
the following response:
25 Q. So, for example, you're not
1 intending to tell the jury, like, I -- you
2 know, "If you go to Article 2.5, you know,
3 Merck breached the terms of this agreement"?
4 Things like that are not part of your
5 opinion, correct?
6 MS. DEL PIZZO: Objection.
7 A. That's correct.
[Id. at 27:25 to -28:7.]
The Errata Sheet concerns pages thirty-one and thirty-six of Dr. Constantinides’ deposition,
which illustrates the following exchanges concerning the breach of contract claim between
Plaintiff’s counsel and Dr. Constantinides:
[Page Thirty-One:]
6 Q. Okay. But I think we just
7 established you're not -- you're not offering
8 the opinion that Merck breached any of the
9 terms of the license agreement, correct?
10 MS. DEL PIZZO: Objection.
11 A. Correct.
12 QUESTIONS BY MR. FITZPATRICK:
13 Q. Are you offering the opinion
14 that Merck breached any of the terms of the
15 BIRD Agreement?
16 MS. DEL PIZZO: Objection.
17 A. Again, I'm -- sorry.
18 QUESTIONS BY MR. FITZPATRICK:
19 Q. That's okay.
20 A. I'm not an attorney, so I
21 cannot offer any legal opinion on this.
22 Q. That's perfectly fair. I just
23 want to be clear.
24 For purposes of your opinion,
25 you will not -- it's not your intention to

[Page Thirty-Two:]
1 tell the Court or the jury that Merck
2 breached any of the terms of this BIRD
3 Agreement, correct?
4 MS. DEL PIZZO: Objection.
5 A. That's correct.

[Docket Entry No. 141, Ex. B, at 31:6 to -32:5.]

In the Errata Sheet, Dr. Constantinides submitted the following changes to his testimony:
Transcript Citation Original Updated Reason
p. 31, line 11 “Correct” “not correct” I believe I did not
accurately hear counsel’s
As I testified on page 27, question when he
line 9, I am offering an appeared to ask a different
expert opinion in this question – but from the
case that Merck transcript, it looks like the
breached this license same question again. I
agreement. testified that I cannot offer
a legal opinion but I am
offering an expert opinion
that Merck breached this
license agreement.
p.32, line 5 “that’s correct” “that’s not correct” I believe I did not
accurately hear counsel’s
As I testified on page 31, question when he
lines 2-5, I am offering appeared to ask a different
an expert opinion in this question – but from the
case that Merck transcript, it looks like the
breached the BIRD same question again. I
agreement. testified that I cannot offer
a legal opinion but I am
offering an expert opinion
that Merck breached the
BIRD agreement.

(Docket Entry No. 141.)
Defendant argues that, in his capacity as an expert, Dr. Constantinides would only be
offering an expert opinion, “having reviewed many contracts over his decades of experience,” that
Plaintiff breached its contractual obligations. (Docket Entry No. 171, at 3.) Defendant asserts that
Dr. Constantinides misunderstood the questions to be asking whether he would be offering a “legal
opinion” on the alleged breaches of contract. The Errata Sheet reiterates that Dr. Constantinides
“believe[s]” that he did “not accurately hear counsel’s question,” and that he testified he “cannot
offer a legal opinion.”
The Court finds the initial questions and testimony to be unambiguous. Dr. Constantinides
confirmed on multiple occasions that he would not be opining that Plaintiff breached the terms of
either contract. The proposed changes materially contradict the initial testimony to reflect an
opposite position: directly changing his responses from “that’s correct” to “that’s not correct.”
Nor is there sufficient justification for the proposed changes. The Court does not find that the
questions being asked were not phrased in such a way that could have led to a misinterpretation
that Plaintiff was only asking for Dr. Constantinides’ legal opinion. In the event there was such a
misunderstanding, defense counsel could have clarified the issues with the witness and opposing
counsel. Indeed, there are numerous objections on the transcript—none of which sought
clarifications to these questions being asked. Defendant’s attempt to now re-write the testimony,

after the fact, to reflect a more favorable transcript, is not permissible.4 The above proposed
amendments shall be stricken.
Testimony Related to Project Managers
Third, Plaintiff argues that changes made in the Errata Sheet related to Plaintiff’s project
managers materially contradict prior deposition testimony. (Docket Entry No. 140.) In his expert
report, Dr. Constantinides opines that the project managers assigned by Plaintiff lacked the
experience or qualifications for their position, which “hindered timely communication and
resolution of the arising issues, especially because multiple sites worked on the project.” (Docket
Entry No. 141, Ex. A, at 6 ¶ 34.)

Pages fifty-one, fifty-two, and fifty-three of Dr. Constantinides’ deposition illustrate the
following exchanges concerning the qualification of the project managers between Plaintiff’s
counsel and Dr. Constantinides during the deposition:
[Page Fifty-One:]
13 Q. Are you offering an opinion
14 that Dr. Meadows didn't have enough
15 experience to be a project manager for this
16 case?
17 MS. DEL PIZZO: Objection.

4 The Court is also mindful that the Errata Sheet is being produced prior to the filing of summary
judgment motions. As set forth in EBC Inc., the Court must prevent parties from freely
contradicting their deposition testimony at the summary judgment stage, guarding against any
attempts to manufacture factual disputes through contradictory testimony to defeat summary
judgment motions.
18 A. That's not what I'm saying.
19 QUESTIONS BY MR. FITZPATRICK:
20 Q. No, I'm asking. And that's
21 fine.
22 A. No, no. He can certainly serve
23 as a project manager. I said that. In order
24 for the project to move forward, whatever
25 you're a project leader, project

[Page Fifty-Two:]
1 management -- manager or project director,
2 you have to have experience in biologics
3 development, especially in light of the fact
4 that CNH is a very complex biologic mixture
5 of polypeptides, oligopeptides, and small
6 peptides. So this is an absolute
7 requirement, in my view, based on my
8 experience in biologics, that the leader or
9 the manager should have in order to fully
10 assess the results but also make
11 recommendations in terms to -- you know, on
12 the next steps.
13 Q. So is it your intention to tell
14 the Court or the jury in this case that
15 Cheyney Meadows did not have sufficient
16 experience to serve as project manager in
17 this case?
18 MS. DEL PIZZO: Objection.
19 That's not what he said.
20 A. No. That's not what I said.
21 QUESTIONS BY MR. FITZPATRICK:
22 Q. Great.
23 Was Fons Rutten one of the
24 project managers in this case?
25 A. Yes.

[Page Fifty-Three:]
1 Q. Do you intend to tell the Court
2 or the jury that Fons Rutten didn't have
3 sufficient qualifications or experience to
4 serve as project manager in this case?
5 A. No, again --
6 Q. Was Allan -- I'm sorry. I
7 didn't mean -- no, go ahead, please, I didn't
8 mean to cut you off.
9 A. Yes. No. The answer is no.
10 Please go ahead with your next
11 one.
12 Q. Okay. Was Allan Weingarten one
13 of the project managers in this case?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Do you intend to tell the Court
16 or the jury that Allan Weingarten didn't have
17 sufficient qualifications or experience to
18 serve as project manager?
19 A. No.

Dr. Constantinides submits the following changes to his testimony:
Transcript Citation Original Updated Reason
p. 52, line 20 “that’s not what I do intend to offer an I believe I did not respond
said” opinion that Cheyney to counsel’s question as
Meadows was not reflected in the transcript,
qualified to be a project and was responding to the
manager on this project question of whether
because he had no Cheyney Meadows was
experience in biologics. qualified to be “project
As I testified on p. 52, manager” generally, not a
line 6, “that is an project manager for a
absolute requirement” as project dealing with a
well as on p. 81, lines 3- biologic.
5: “it was essential for
the project leader to
have experience with
biologics.”
p. 53, lines 5, 9, 19 “no, again--…yes. I do intend to offer an I believe I did not respond
No. that answer is opinion that Fons Rutten to counsel’s question as
no…no” and Allan Weingarten reflected in the transcript,
were not qualified to be and was responding to the
project managers on this question of whether Fons
project because they had Rutten and Allan
no experience in Weingarten were qualified
biologics. As I testified to be “project managers”
on p. 52, line 6, “that is generally, not a project
an absolute requirement” manager for a project
as well as on p. 81, lines dealing with a biologic.
3-5: “it was essential for
the project leader to
have experience with
biologics.”
(Docket Entry No. 141.)
Defendant concedes that “[w]hen asked whether three specific individuals, Cheyney
Meadows, Fons Rutten and Allan Weingarten, about their qualification to be project managers
generally, Dr. Constantinides testified that they all had experience to be project managers.” (Id.
at 12–13.) Defendant argues, however, that Dr. Constantinides “later clarified his testimony that
in order to be a project manager for this particular project, it was imperative and an absolute
requirement to have experience in biologics, which these individuals did not have.” (Id. at 13
(emphasis in original)). In preparing the Errata Sheet, Defendant asserts that Dr. Constantinides
felt compelled to clarify his responses, which, in the context of his other testimony, are not

contradictory.
The relevant testimony and Plaintiff’s counsel’s questions asked if Dr. Constantinides
believed whether these three project managers lacked the qualifications or experience to act as
project managers “in this case”. Dr. Constantinides has changed each “no” answer to “I do intend
to offer an opinion that [the three project managers] were not qualified to be project managers on
this project . . . .” These are substantive changes that materially contradict Dr. Constantinides’
prior testimony.5 For these reasons, the Court will again strike the proposed amendments in the
Errata Sheet.
Testimony Related to the Israeli Study
Fourth, Plaintiff raises that, “[d]espite claiming in his expert report that the Israeli Study

showed that CNH reduced the risk of new intramammary infections, Dr. Constantinides admitted

5 Whether Dr. Constantinides believed the three project managers were qualified to handle the
specific project at hand, which involved biologics, is a separate issue. Should there be any issues
at trial, Dr. Constantinides can present the same justifications for his initial responses; namely, that
he believed these three individuals were "generally qualified" to be project managers, but were not
necessarily qualified or equipped to handle the specific project in question.
at his deposition three times that CNH did not meet the Israeli Study protocol’s definition of
success[.]” (Docket Entry No. 140, at 17-18.) Pages ninety-seven, ninety-eight, and one hundred
of Dr. Constantinides’ deposition illustrate the relevant exchanges:
[Page Ninety-Seven:]
1 reference to protocol in this particular
2 paragraph.
3 QUESTIONS BY MR. FITZPATRICK:
4 Q. Agreed. We're on the same
5 page.
6 You didn't mention the
7 protocol, and you didn't mention the success
8 criteria, correct?
9 A. Yeah.
10 Q. Yeah. Okay.
11 I'm now, separate --
12 understood.
13 I'm asking separately. We're
14 now looking at the protocol and looking at
15 the data.
16 Am I correct that the product
17 failed to meet the efficacy criteria and the
18 protocol for prevention?
19 A. Yeah.
20 MS. DEL PIZZO: Objection.
21 A. There may be other data,
22 actually, subsequent data, obtained, which
23 supports what is in the protocol. Again, I'm
24 not --
25

[Page Ninety-Eight:]

1 QUESTIONS BY MR. FITZPATRICK:
2 Q. Yeah. I'm talking about the
3 data you cited in paragraph 51.
4 I just want to know whether the
5 data you actually cited shows that the
6 product failed to meet the efficacy criteria
7 for prevention in the protocol that we just
8 looked at.
9 A. It appears --
10 MS. DEL PIZZO: Same objection.
11 QUESTIONS BY MR. FITZPATRICK:
12 Q. Sorry. Go ahead.
13 A. It appears, indeed, that, you
14 know, there is difference between the
15 targeted efficacy in the protocol versus what
16 was obtained here. That's all I can say.

. . .

[Page One Hundred:]

5 QUESTIONS BY MR. FITZPATRICK:
6 Q. So what you're just talking
7 about there -- and I don't want to get into
8 the details of this right now, but Mileutis
9 might try to make the product more effective
10 in the future. That's what you're talking
11 about in that sentence, right?
12 A. That's correct, yes.
13 Q. And that's fine.
14 My question is really just
15 that, based on the data you actually point to
16 and the protocol we actually looked at, the
17 product didn't meet the criteria to be
18 determined as effective as defined in the
19 protocol. I just want to know if that's
20 correct. Is that correct?
21 MS. DEL PIZZO: Objection.
22 A. Yes.
23 QUESTIONS BY MR. FITZPATRICK:
24 Q. Is the answer -- your counsel's
25 objection is preserved.

[Page One Hundred and One:]
1 Is the answer "yes"?
2 A. Yes, yes.
3 Q. Okay.

Dr. Constantinides submits the following changes to his testimony:
Transcript Citation Original Updated Reason
p. 97, line 19 “yeah” “no” I testified that I did not
review the protocol and
was not opining on the
clinical aspects of the
California study and was
not in the position to opine
on whether the product
met the criteria of MLT-
18 (see p. 92- 96) and on
p. 98, line 22: “obviously
they demonstrate
efficacy..[sic]”
P. [sic] 100, line 22 “yes” “no” I testified that I did not
review the protocol and
was not opining on the
clinical aspects of the
California study and was
not in the position to opine
on whether the product
met the criteria of MLT-
18 (see p. 92-96) and on p.
98, line 22: “obviously
they demonstrate
efficacy..”

(Docket Entry No. 141.)
Through the Errata Sheet, Dr. Constantinides now purports to change these answers from
“yes” to “no.” Simply put, the Court finds that these are "180-degree" changes in substance that
directly contradict Dr. Constantinides’ initial testimony. Accordingly, the Court will strike the
above proposed changes.
Testimony Related to Targeted Product Attributes
Fifth, Plaintiff argues that changes made in the Errata Sheet related to the targeted product
quality attributes materially contradict prior deposition testimony. (Docket Entry No. 140, at 18–
19.) Pages one hundred and thirty-six and one hundred and thirty-seven of Dr. Constantinides’
deposition illustrate the following relevant exchanges between Plaintiff’s counsel and Dr.
Constantinides during the deposition:
[Page One Hundred and Thirty-Six:]
19 Q. What are the targeted product
20 quality attributes, safety and efficacy, for
21 this product?
22 MS. DEL PIZZO: Objection.
23 A. Again, I'm not qualified to
24 address that particular question. If you ask
25 me about the product qualities in reference

[Page One Hundred and Thirty-Seven:]
1 to formulation, manufacturing, that's a
2 different question.
3 QUESTIONS BY MR. FITZPATRICK:
4 Q. Okay. So are you qualified to
5 opine that the product meets the targeted
6 product quality attributes, safety and
7 efficacy?
8 MS. DEL PIZZO: Objection.
9 A. I just responded by saying this
10 is outside the area of my expertise.

Dr. Constantinides submits the following changes to his testimony:
Transcript Citation Original Updated Reason
p. 137, lines 9-10 …I just responded …yes as to the targeted I believe I did not
by saying this is product quality attributes accurately hear counsel’s
outside the area of (which incorporates question and was
my expertise… safety and efficacy)… responding to the question
of what is the identity of
the targeted product
quality attributes, and
thought he was asking
about safety and efficacy
separate from the product
quality attributes, but
safety and efficacy are
part of the targeted
product quality attributes.
I intend to testify that the
product meets the targeted
product quality attributes
(which incorporates safety
and efficacy).

(Docket Entry No. 141.)
The above testimony reflects that Dr. Constantinides indicated that he was “not qualified
to address” the targeted product quality attributes, safety and efficacy for CNH. When asked, “[s]o
are you qualified to opine that the product meets the targeted product quality attributes, safety and
efficacy?,” Dr. Constantinides replied “I just responded by saying this is outside the area of my
expertise.” Through the Errata Sheet, Dr. Constantinides changes his answer from “I just

responded by saying this is outside the area of my expertise” to “yes as to the targeted product
quality attributes” and that he “intend[s] to testify that the product meets the targeted product
quality attributes.” The Court will strike this amendment as a substantive change that materially
contradicts the initial testimony.
Other Substantive Changes
Finally, Plaintiff argues that there is no justification for a number of the purported
testimony changes made in the Errata Sheet and further alleges that the changes are “nonsensical
and belied by the transcript.” (Docket Entry No. 140.) For instance, Plaintiff raises changes in
Dr. Constantinides’ testimony regarding Plaintiff’s alleged failure to communicate and collaborate

with Defendant. Changes to this testimony were made on pages seventy-two and eighty-five of
Dr. Constantinides’ deposition transcript:
Transcript Citation Original Updated Reason
p. 72, line 16 “yes, yes” As I testified (p. 70, line I believe I did not
21, for instance), and as accurately hear counsel’s
reflected in my report, I question when he
did testify to and do appeared to ask a different
intend to tell the jury question – but from the
that Merck failed to tell transcript, it looks like the
Mileutis “actual facts” same question again,
about the project which I had already
throughout the course of answered repeatedly.
the project.
p. 85, line 20 “correct” “not correct” I believe I did not
accurately hear counsel’s
question and was
responding to the question
of whether Merck
informed Mileutis it was
attempting to solve the
precipitation issue and not
that Merck told Mileutis
about the” lots of different
formulations” it was
trying, which Merck failed
to do. And I do not recall
seeing lots of different
formulations in the
materials I reviewed.

(Docket Entry No. 141.)
Other substantive changes have been made to the testimony on pages one hundred and
nine, one hundred and ten, one hundred and eleven, one hundred and twelve, one hundred and
forty-one, and one hundred and sixty-four:
Transcript Citation Original Updated Reason
p. 109, lines 7-10 “…they were more Counsel reframed the I believe counsel’s
or less similar, response on lines 12-13 reframing of the answer
these three to: “assuming they were is incorrect and
batches” similar”. As I testified therefore further
they were “more or less clarifies his testimony.
similar” and I intend to
testify to the jury that
they were less similar
(different) in light of the
fact that some used in
the California study
were contaminated and
the three batches
resulted in different rates
of precipitation.
p. 112, lines 20-21 “yes. That is ‘yes’. Counsel reframed the I believe counsel’s
I give again.” response on p. 111, lines reframing of the answer is
17-21 to: “…it used two incorrect and that the
batches which had ensuing counsel colloquy
generally the same confused the question, and
composition…””. As I therefore further clarifies
testified, p. 109, lines 7- his testimony.
10, they were “more or
less similar” and I intend
to testify to the jury that
they were less similar
(different) in light of the
fact that some used in
the California study
were contaminated and
the three batches
resulted in different rates
of precipitation.
p. 141, line 20 …that’s right… …that’s right but there I believe counsel’s
was no evidence that reframing of the answer
they did… confused what question
was being asked. As my
report reflects, I intend to
testify that “Lena Miller-
Jones and her team
worked on more than 90
different formulations
without the full
knowledge of Mileutis,”
and that is based on the
fact that “there was no
evidence that they did”
inform Mileutis.
p. 164, line 5 …yes… I wish to clarify that I I believe counsel’s
p. 164, line 21 …correct… was responding to the inserting the phrase
questions insofar as they “during the collaboration”
asked whether Merck confuses my testimony
engaged in CNH and seek to clarify here
technology development that I do not agree with
and was working toward counsel’s statements that
validating the Merck collaborated when
technology. Otherwise, it failed to do so.
the answer would be
…no… since my expert
opinion is that Merck
failed to “collaborate.”

(Docket Entry No. 141.)
Defendant’s opposition does not distinguish or otherwise support the above changes in the
Errata Sheet, which would include testimony on Plaintiff’s alleged failure to communicate with
Defendant, Plaintiff’s testing of numerous formulations of CNH, and the tasks completed during
the collaboration. The Court finds sufficient grounds to grant Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to
strike these errata for the same reasons consistent with this opinion.6 (Docket Entry No. 141.)

IT IS on this 28th day of February, 2023

ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE THE ERRATA SHEET
(DOCKET ENTRY NO. 139) IS GRANTED AND DENIED, IN PART; AND IT IS
FURTHER

ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE THE UNOPPOSED
CORRECTIVE CHANGES MADE IN THE ERRATA SHEET IS DENIED; AND IT
IS FURTHER

ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE ENTRIES 11:25, 13:2-3,
14:2-17, 31:11, 32:5, 52:20, 53:2, 9, 19, 72:16, 85:20, 97:19, 100:22, 109:7-10, 112:20-
21, 137:9-10, 141:20, 164:5, 164:21 IS GRANTED, AS THEY ARE
PROCEDURALLY AND SUBSTANTIVELY IMPROPER UNDER FEDERAL
RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 30(e). DR. CONSTANTINIDES’ ORIGINAL
TESTIMONY SHALL REMAIN PART OF THE RECORD; AND IT IS FURTHER

ORDERED THAT THE PARTIES PROVIDE THE COURT WITH A STATUS
UPDATE ON DISCOVERY PROCEEDINGS NO LATER THAN MARCH 10, 2023;
AND IT IS FURTHER

ORDERED THAT THE CLERK OF COURT TERMINATE DOCKET ENTRY NO.
139.

s/Tonianne J. Bongiovanni
HONORABLE TONIANNE J. BONGIOVANNI
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6 In addition to there being no opposition to these errata, the Errata Sheet is procedurally deficient,
which serves as another basis to reject the proposed changes. Consequently, the Court finds no
further discussion is necessary.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10274892. Public record. Not legal advice.