Federal Court Update: The Extension Fight That Wasn’t “Just About Seven Days”

Here is what just happened in the federal case regarding Faegre Drinker’s second request for an extension.

The Background

The original response deadline for Sanofi, Chattem, and Quten was set for February 11, 2026.

That date was not random.

It came from a negotiated compromise.

Faegre Drinker initially asked for 30 days, which would have pushed their deadline to February 20 and created staggered briefing with Fisher Phillips, who already had a February 6 deadline.

To avoid staggered deadlines, I proposed 21 days instead of 30.

We agreed to February 11 specifically to prevent procedural imbalance and inefficient overlapping motions.

The February 9 Meet and Confer

On February 9, I had a required meet-and-confer call with Faegre Drinker.

During that call:

• Counsel went through their anticipated Motion to Dismiss in detail.

• They outlined their Rule 12 arguments.

• They previewed jurisdictional challenges.

• They discussed their structural defenses claim-by-claim.

This was not vague.

They were fully prepared.

At the very end of the call, after previewing their complete defense — they asked for another seven-day extension.

That would move their deadline to February 18.

Seven days sounds small.

Procedurally, it is not.

Fisher Phillips had already filed their Motion to Dismiss on February 6. My opposition to that motion was due February 20.

If Sanofi filed on February 18, it would create:

• Overlapping briefing cycles

• Staggered opposition deadlines

• Increased procedural burden

• Inefficient docket management

The very thing the January 21 agreement was designed to prevent.

My Position

I made it clear:

I did not oppose reasonable extensions.

I opposed staggered deadlines.

I proposed that if they needed additional time, we align opposition deadlines so the briefing would not be staggered.

They declined.

They then filed their Second Motion for Extension (ECF 17), supported by declaration (ECF 18).

I filed an Opposition explaining the prior agreement and the impact of staggered deadlines (ECF 19).

They filed a Reply (ECF 22).

They also emailed chambers requesting an expedited ruling due to the approaching deadline.

What the Court Did

Right before 5:00 PM on February 11, the Court granted the extension.

However, the Court also allowed me to adjust my opposition deadline to align with Sanofi’s new deadline.

ORDER: Granting Defendants Sanofi-Aventis US LLC, Chattem, Inc., and Quten Research Institute, LLC's Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. [17]). Answer or other responsive pleading is due by 2/18/2026. Plaintiff may request an extension of time to align his deadline to respond to defendants Steven S. Dickert and AMJ Services LLC's pending motion to dismiss (ECF No. [14]) to the same date as his deadline to respond to the anticipated motion to dismiss. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman.

In other words:

The extension was granted.

But the staggered-deadline problem was addressed.

The very alignment solution I proposed — which defense counsel refused to agree to — is now effectively in place through the Court’s management of the schedule.

Why This Mattered

On paper, this looks like a small procedural dispute over seven days.

It was not.

It was about:

• Agreement integrity.

• Transparency in motion practice.

• Full disclosure to the Court.

• Efficient case management.

• Avoiding procedural maneuvering.

In their motion papers, key context was omitted — including the negotiated agreement that set February 11 in the first place.

When an elite firm omits critical procedural history in its filings, that matters.

Not because of emotion.

Because it sets a tone.

Litigation is built on the integrity of the record and candor to the Court.

This may have looked like a small fight.

But it mattered extremely.

It establishes how this case will proceed:

• Whether agreements will be honored.

• Whether full context will be disclosed.

• Whether procedural positioning will be transparent.

The Court ultimately aligned the deadlines, preserving efficiency.

And that alignment is what this was about from the beginning.

More updates to follow.

——

Federal Court Update: Extension Granted — Deadlines Aligned

Here is what ultimately happened with the second extension request filed by Faegre Drinker (Sanofi, Chattem, Quten).

Recap

• The parties had agreed to a February 11 deadline specifically to avoid staggered briefing.

• On February 9, during our meet-and-confer call, Faegre Drinker previewed their entire anticipated Motion to Dismiss in detail.

• At the end of that call, they requested an additional seven-day extension.

• I explained I did not oppose reasonable extensions — I opposed staggered deadlines.

• I proposed aligning opposition deadlines to avoid inefficiency.

• They declined.

They then filed their Second Motion for Extension (ECF 17)  , supported by declaration (ECF 18)  .

I filed an Opposition (ECF 19)   explaining the prior agreement and the risk of staggered briefing.

They filed a Reply (ECF 22)  .

They also emailed chambers requesting expedited ruling  .

⸻

The Court’s Ruling

Right before 5:00 PM on February 11, the Court granted the extension.

However — and this is important — the Court also permitted me to move to align my opposition deadline to match the new Sanofi deadline.

In other words:

The extension was granted.

But the Court addressed the staggered-deadline issue.

The very alignment solution I proposed — which defense counsel declined — is now effectively in place through the Court’s management of the schedule.

⸻

What This Means

This was never about denying seven days.

It was about:

• Avoiding staggered briefing cycles.

• Avoiding overlapping opposition deadlines.

• Preventing unnecessary procedural complexity.

• Ensuring fair and efficient case management.

Had defense counsel agreed during our February 9 call to align opposition timing, this entire motion practice likely could have been avoided.

Instead:

• A motion was filed.

• An opposition was filed.

• A reply was filed.

• Chambers were contacted.

• Judicial resources were expended.

And the end result is what I proposed at the outset: aligned deadlines.

⸻

Where Things Stand Now

• Faegre Drinker has additional time to file their Motion to Dismiss.

• My opposition deadlines can now be aligned.

• The staggered briefing issue has been addressed.

The Court preserved efficiency.

And thankfully, the schedule is now structured in a way that avoids the procedural imbalance I raised from the beginning.

More updates to follow.