{"cached_at":"2026-10-21T10:43:10.441449+00:00","cl_docket_id":"69461997","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","id":69461997,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/txwd/","court_id":"txwd","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":null,"clusters":["https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10911224/"],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":null,"referred_to":null,"bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/69461997/crocker-v-cassava-sciences-inc/","date_created":"2024-12-12T13:06:08.657656-08:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T22:50:40.012272-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"David A. Ezra","referred_to_str":"","panel_str":"","date_last_index":null,"date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2024-12-12","date_terminated":null,"date_last_filing":"2026-10-08","case_name_short":"Crocker","case_name":"Crocker v. Cassava Sciences, Inc.","case_name_full":"","slug":"crocker-v-cassava-sciences-inc","docket_number":"1:24-cv-01525","docket_number_core":"2401525","docket_number_raw":"1:24-cv-01525","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"1","federal_dn_case_type":"cv","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"DAE","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"1172816897","cause":"15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act","nature_of_suit":"850 Securities/Commodities","jury_demand":"Plaintiff","jurisdiction_type":"Federal Question","appellate_fee_status":"","appellate_case_type_information":"","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"","filepath_ia_json":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2024-12-12T13:06:08.651925-08:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/23999037/","id":23999037,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16224963/","attorney_id":16224963,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":10}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-10-20T22:50:47.632574-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T22:50:47.632588-07:00","name":"Manohar Rao","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/23999036/","id":23999036,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16224962/","attorney_id":16224962,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":10}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-10-20T22:50:47.575537-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T22:50:47.575549-07:00","name":"Ken Calderone","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/23999035/","id":23999035,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16224961/","attorney_id":16224961,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":10}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-10-20T22:50:47.518109-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T22:50:47.518121-07:00","name":"Mohammad Bozorgi","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16345610/","id":16345610,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705467/","attorney_id":10705467,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705467/","attorney_id":10705467,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-09-15T19:15:41.760218-07:00","date_modified":"2025-09-15T19:15:41.760228-07:00","name":"Robert Smisek","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16345609/","id":16345609,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705466/","attorney_id":10705466,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-09-15T19:15:41.659088-07:00","date_modified":"2025-09-15T19:15:41.659098-07:00","name":"Steven Desimone","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16345608/","id":16345608,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705465/","attorney_id":10705465,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705465/","attorney_id":10705465,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705465/","attorney_id":10705465,"date_action":"2025-05-08","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":6}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":"2025-05-08","extra_info":"TERMINATED: 05/08/2025","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-09-15T19:15:41.601090-07:00","date_modified":"2025-09-15T19:15:41.601100-07:00","name":"Danny Hill","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16345607/","id":16345607,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705464/","attorney_id":10705464,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-09-15T19:15:41.508099-07:00","date_modified":"2025-09-15T19:15:41.508110-07:00","name":"Jesse Vestal","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16345606/","id":16345606,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10005534/","attorney_id":10005534,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-09-15T19:15:41.461572-07:00","date_modified":"2025-09-15T19:15:41.461582-07:00","name":"David Bohn","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16345605/","id":16345605,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10005534/","attorney_id":10005534,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-09-15T19:15:41.419627-07:00","date_modified":"2025-09-15T19:15:41.419638-07:00","name":"Steve E. Pello","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16345604/","id":16345604,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037305/","attorney_id":10037305,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037305/","attorney_id":10037305,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037306/","attorney_id":10037306,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-09-15T19:15:41.403664-07:00","date_modified":"2025-09-15T19:15:41.403675-07:00","name":"Eric Schoen","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16345603/","id":16345603,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10961106/","attorney_id":10961106,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10961107/","attorney_id":10961107,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10961107/","attorney_id":10961107,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10961108/","attorney_id":10961108,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10961108/","attorney_id":10961108,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-09-15T19:15:41.387922-07:00","date_modified":"2025-09-15T19:15:41.387933-07:00","name":"Lindsay Burns","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16345602/","id":16345602,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10961106/","attorney_id":10961106,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10961107/","attorney_id":10961107,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10961107/","attorney_id":10961107,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10961108/","attorney_id":10961108,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10961108/","attorney_id":10961108,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-09-15T19:15:41.369724-07:00","date_modified":"2025-09-15T19:15:41.369735-07:00","name":"Remi Barbier","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16345601/","id":16345601,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705463/","attorney_id":10705463,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705463/","attorney_id":10705463,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705463/","attorney_id":10705463,"date_action":"2026-07-09","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705461/","attorney_id":10705461,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705461/","attorney_id":10705461,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10961105/","attorney_id":10961105,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10961105/","attorney_id":10961105,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10961104/","attorney_id":10961104,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10961104/","attorney_id":10961104,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705462/","attorney_id":10705462,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705462/","attorney_id":10705462,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16224960/","attorney_id":16224960,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705460/","attorney_id":10705460,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705460/","attorney_id":10705460,"date_action":"2026-06-23","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":6}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-09-15T19:15:41.032328-07:00","date_modified":"2025-09-15T19:15:41.032339-07:00","name":"Sheryl Grove","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16345600/","id":16345600,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705463/","attorney_id":10705463,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705463/","attorney_id":10705463,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705463/","attorney_id":10705463,"date_action":"2026-07-09","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705461/","attorney_id":10705461,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705461/","attorney_id":10705461,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16224960/","attorney_id":16224960,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16224960/","attorney_id":16224960,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10961105/","attorney_id":10961105,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10961105/","attorney_id":10961105,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705460/","attorney_id":10705460,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705460/","attorney_id":10705460,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705460/","attorney_id":10705460,"date_action":"2026-06-23","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10961104/","attorney_id":10961104,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10961104/","attorney_id":10961104,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705462/","attorney_id":10705462,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705462/","attorney_id":10705462,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-09-15T19:15:40.899796-07:00","date_modified":"2025-09-15T19:15:40.899807-07:00","name":"Inversiones Ane Miren Limitada","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16345599/","id":16345599,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705463/","attorney_id":10705463,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705463/","attorney_id":10705463,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705463/","attorney_id":10705463,"date_action":"2026-07-09","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705461/","attorney_id":10705461,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705461/","attorney_id":10705461,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10961105/","attorney_id":10961105,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10961105/","attorney_id":10961105,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10961104/","attorney_id":10961104,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10961104/","attorney_id":10961104,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705462/","attorney_id":10705462,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705462/","attorney_id":10705462,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16224960/","attorney_id":16224960,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705460/","attorney_id":10705460,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705460/","attorney_id":10705460,"date_action":"2026-06-23","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":6}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-09-15T19:15:40.822828-07:00","date_modified":"2025-09-15T19:15:40.822839-07:00","name":"Carlos Perez-Cotapos Subercaseaux","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16345598/","id":16345598,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705463/","attorney_id":10705463,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705463/","attorney_id":10705463,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705463/","attorney_id":10705463,"date_action":"2026-07-09","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705461/","attorney_id":10705461,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705461/","attorney_id":10705461,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10961105/","attorney_id":10961105,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10961105/","attorney_id":10961105,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10961104/","attorney_id":10961104,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10961104/","attorney_id":10961104,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705462/","attorney_id":10705462,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705462/","attorney_id":10705462,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16224960/","attorney_id":16224960,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705460/","attorney_id":10705460,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705460/","attorney_id":10705460,"date_action":"2026-06-23","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":6}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-09-15T19:15:40.753290-07:00","date_modified":"2025-09-15T19:15:40.753301-07:00","name":"Maria Isable Ureta Bazan","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16345597/","id":16345597,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705463/","attorney_id":10705463,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705463/","attorney_id":10705463,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705463/","attorney_id":10705463,"date_action":"2026-07-09","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705461/","attorney_id":10705461,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705461/","attorney_id":10705461,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10961105/","attorney_id":10961105,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10961105/","attorney_id":10961105,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10961104/","attorney_id":10961104,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10961104/","attorney_id":10961104,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705462/","attorney_id":10705462,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705462/","attorney_id":10705462,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16224960/","attorney_id":16224960,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705460/","attorney_id":10705460,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705460/","attorney_id":10705460,"date_action":"2026-06-23","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":6}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-09-15T19:15:40.336587-07:00","date_modified":"2025-09-15T19:15:40.336598-07:00","name":"Carlos Perez-Cotapos Ugarte","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16345596/","id":16345596,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705463/","attorney_id":10705463,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705463/","attorney_id":10705463,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705463/","attorney_id":10705463,"date_action":"2026-07-09","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705461/","attorney_id":10705461,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705461/","attorney_id":10705461,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10961105/","attorney_id":10961105,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10961105/","attorney_id":10961105,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10961104/","attorney_id":10961104,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10961104/","attorney_id":10961104,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705459/","attorney_id":10705459,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705459/","attorney_id":10705459,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705462/","attorney_id":10705462,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705462/","attorney_id":10705462,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16224960/","attorney_id":16224960,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705460/","attorney_id":10705460,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10705460/","attorney_id":10705460,"date_action":"2026-06-23","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":6}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-09-15T19:15:40.217307-07:00","date_modified":"2025-09-15T19:15:40.217318-07:00","name":"Hoorieh Alaghemand","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14894377/","id":14894377,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037305/","attorney_id":10037305,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037305/","attorney_id":10037305,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037306/","attorney_id":10037306,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037306/","attorney_id":10037306,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-12-19T22:56:23.252920-08:00","date_modified":"2024-12-19T22:56:23.252928-08:00","name":"James W. Kupiec","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14894376/","id":14894376,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037305/","attorney_id":10037305,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037305/","attorney_id":10037305,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037306/","attorney_id":10037306,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037306/","attorney_id":10037306,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","docket_id":69461997,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-12-19T22:56:23.246528-08:00","date_modified":"2024-12-19T22:56:23.246535-08:00","name":"Richard Jon Barry","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/482255618/","id":482255618,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/498025489/","id":498025489,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-10-20T22:50:51.299326-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T22:50:51.299339-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-20T22:50:51.283681-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T22:50:51.283692-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-12","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-12.003","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"MOTION REFERRED: referred 95 MOTION UGARTE PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSED MOTION TO VIEW SEALED DOCUMENTS. Referral Judge: Mark Lane. (cnr)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/482255617/","id":482255617,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/498025488/","id":498025488,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-10-20T22:50:51.263207-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T22:50:51.263220-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-20T22:50:51.242462-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T22:50:51.242476-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-12","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-12.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Text Order REFERRING 95 Motion to U.S. Magistrate Judge Lane. Entered by Judge David A. Ezra. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (MJSl)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/482255616/","id":482255616,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/498025487/","id":498025487,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-10-20T22:50:51.205012-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T22:50:51.205027-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-20T22:50:51.183736-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T22:50:51.183749-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-12","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-12.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Text Order GRANTING 104 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. The deadline for the Ugarte plaintiffs to file their reply is hereby extended up to and including August 20, 2026. Entered by Judge David A. Ezra. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (MJSl)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/482255615/","id":482255615,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/498025486/","id":498025486,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-10-20T22:50:51.168256-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T22:50:51.168267-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-20T22:50:51.154238-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T22:50:51.154252-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-28","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-28.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Text Order GRANTING 100 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. The deadline for Defendants to respond to the Ugarte Plaintiffs' Motion to View Sealed Documents is extended to August 10, 2026. Entered by Judge David A. Ezra. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ASlc)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/482255614/","id":482255614,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/498025485/","id":498025485,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-10-20T22:50:51.118914-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T22:50:51.118927-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-20T22:50:51.098640-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T22:50:51.098651-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-23","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-23.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Text Order GRANTING 96 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. The deadline for the Ugarte plaintiffs to respond to the Objection is hereby extended to August 3, 2026. Entered by Judge David A. Ezra. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ASlc)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/482255613/","id":482255613,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/498025484/","id":498025484,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-10-20T22:50:51.082691-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T22:50:51.082701-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-20T22:50:51.061959-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T22:50:51.061969-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-09","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-09.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Text Order GRANTING 93 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Entered by Judge David A. Ezra. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ASlc)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/482255612/","id":482255612,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/498025483/","id":498025483,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-10-20T22:50:51.045694-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T22:50:51.045710-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-20T22:50:51.023623-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T22:50:51.023639-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-13","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-13.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"MOTION REFERRED: referred 86 Agreed MOTION TO RESCHEDULE JUNE 17, 2026 HEARING. Referral Judge: Susan Hightower. (dm)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/482255611/","id":482255611,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/498025482/","id":498025482,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-10-20T22:50:51.011289-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T22:50:51.011300-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-20T22:50:50.993113-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T22:50:50.993123-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-13","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-13.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Text Order REFERRING 86 Motion to U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower. Entered by Judge David A. Ezra. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ASlc)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/482255610/","id":482255610,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/498025481/","id":498025481,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-10-20T22:50:50.979507-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T22:50:50.979520-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-20T22:50:50.961300-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T22:50:50.961314-07:00","date_filed":"2026-01-05","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-01-05.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Text Order GRANTING 77 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Defendants shall file any response(s) to Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike (Dkt. # 75) on or before January 21, 2026. Entered by Judge David A. Ezra. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ASlc)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/482255609/","id":482255609,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/498025480/","id":498025480,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-10-20T22:50:50.883031-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T22:50:50.883047-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-20T22:50:50.854167-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T22:50:50.854182-07:00","date_filed":"2025-12-23","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-12-23.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Text Order GRANTING 73 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. The page limit for Plaintiffs' Opposition to the Company Defendants' Motion is extended to 25 pages. Entered by Judge David A. Ezra. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ASlc)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/481014416/","id":481014416,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/496735785/","id":496735785,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69461997/112/crocker-v-cassava-sciences-inc/","date_created":"2026-10-08T15:06:46.949326-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-08T15:06:46.962946-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"112","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181037576400","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Hearing","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-08T15:06:46.916083-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-16T10:45:42.174639-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-08","time_filed":"16:50:31","entry_number":112,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-08.001","pacer_sequence_number":453,"description":"ORDER GRANTING 109 Motion for Hearing. Scheduling Conference set for 11/12/2026 at 02:00 PM before Judge Susan Hightower. Signed by Judge Susan Hightower. (dm) (Entered: 10/08/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/479095895/","id":479095895,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/494737832/","id":494737832,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69461997/111/crocker-v-cassava-sciences-inc/","date_created":"2026-09-23T10:12:44.743131-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-23T10:12:44.760340-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"111","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181037463135","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-23T10:12:44.700122-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-16T10:45:42.147878-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-23","time_filed":"11:30:50","entry_number":111,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-23.001","pacer_sequence_number":451,"description":"NOTICE Regarding Prior Request for Sur-Reply by Hoorieh Alaghemand, Maria Isable Ureta Bazan, Sheryl Grove, Inversiones Ane Miren Limitada, Carlos Perez-Cotapos Subercaseaux, Carlos Perez-Cotapos Ugarte (Mitchell, Luc) (Entered: 09/23/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/478437771/","id":478437771,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/494063397/","id":494063397,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69461997/110/crocker-v-cassava-sciences-inc/","date_created":"2026-09-17T15:07:45.353940-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-29T18:38:15.361909-07:00","sha1":"e29bfd16ca52c2c6908eed580223ffbf8be08676","page_count":2,"file_size":213229,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172816897/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172816897.110.0_2.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172816897/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172816897.110.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:24-cv-01525-DAE Document 110 Filed 09/17/26 Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n AUSTIN DIVISION\n\n CARLOS P\u00c9REZ-COTAPOS UGARTE, \u00a7\n et al., \u00a7\n Plaintiff, \u00a7\n v. \u00a7 A-24-CV-1525-DAE\n \u00a7\n CASSAVA SCIENCES, INC., et al., \u00a7\n Defendants. \u00a7\n \u00a7\n\n ORDER\n\n Before the court are Ugarte Plaintiffs\u2019 Memorandum of Law in Support of Opposed\n\nMotion to View Sealed Documents (Dkt. 95), Defendants\u2019 Response to Ugarte Plaintiffs\u2019 Motion\n\nto View Sealed Documents (Dkt. 103), and Ugarte Plaintiffs\u2019 Reply in Further Support of Opposed\n\nMotion to View Sealed Documents (Dkt. 107).1 Having considered the parties\u2019 briefing and\n\napplicable law, the docket of both this cause, 1:24-CV-1525, and cause 1:21-CV-751 and finding\n\nthat a hearing on the matter is not necessary, the court ORDERS as follows.\n\n Defendants Cassava Sciences, Inc., Remi Barbier, Lindsay Burns, and Eric J. Schoen, shall\n\nimmediately furnish the Ugarte Plaintiffs with a copy of all sealed and/or redacted filings related\n\nto Defendants\u2019 motion to consolidate, including, but not limited to, all sealed and/or redacted\n\nfilings identified on Exhibit A to the Ugarte Plaintiffs\u2019 Motion to View Sealed Documents (Dkt.\n\n95-3), along with all documents filed therewith, including, but not limited to, declarations, exhibits,\n\nand proposed orders. Should any further documents relating to the motion to consolidate be filed\n\nunder seal and/or in redacted form, Defendants shall concurrently serve unredacted versions of\n\nthose filings on the Ugarte Plaintiffs.\n\n\n 1\n This motion was referred to the undersigned for disposition by United States Senior District Judge David A.\nEzra pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 636(b), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and Rule 1(c) of Appendix C of the Local\nRules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. See Text Order dated August 12, 2026.\n\n 1\n\f Case 1:24-cv-01525-DAE Document 110 Filed 09/17/26 Page 2 of 2\n\n\n\n\n In simple terms, Defendants fail to offer persuasive and compelling arguments in support\n\nof their belief that the sealed documents at issue in cause 1:24-CV-751 should be sealed from\n\nreview by the Ugarte plaintiffs. Defendants have over sealed and over pled their concerns related\n\nto confidentiality, mediation, and settlement. The dockets for both cases reflect this ongoing mess.\n\nDefendants have used their ability to seal as a broad sword rather than merely a targeted shield. In\n\naddition, Defense efforts to consolidate the two cases were recently rebuffed. Dkt. 92. A\n\ncomprehensive resolution of the issues raised in this case is dependent upon Plaintiffs\u2019 knowledge\n\nof all of the relevant facts, not just what Defendants want to share. To be clear, the sealed\n\ndocuments that Plaintiffs seek to review are relevant to the matters at issue in A-24-CV-1525.\n\n Ugarte Plaintiffs\u2019 Memorandum of Law in Support of Opposed Motion to View Sealed\n\nDocuments (Dkt. 95), is GRANTED.\n\n\n\n SIGNED September 17, 2026.\n _______________________________\n MARK LANE\n UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-17T15:37:34.114897-07:00","document_number":"110","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181037434223","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-17T15:07:45.331718-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-16T10:45:42.109448-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-17","time_filed":"16:18:59","entry_number":110,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-17.001","pacer_sequence_number":449,"description":"ORDER GRANTING 95 Memorandum of Law in Support of Opposed Motion to View Sealed Documents. Signed by Judge Mark Lane. (dm) (Entered: 09/17/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/477914897/","id":477914897,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493525649/","id":493525649,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69461997/109/crocker-v-cassava-sciences-inc/","date_created":"2026-09-14T13:06:04.404453-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-14T13:06:04.416897-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"109","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181037402174","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Status Report","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-14T13:06:04.374939-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-16T10:45:42.095975-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-14","time_filed":"14:45:17","entry_number":109,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-14.001","pacer_sequence_number":447,"description":"STATUS REPORT and Request for Scheduling Conference by Cassava Sciences, Inc., Eric Schoen. (Costa, Gregg) . (Entered: 09/14/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/475253355/","id":475253355,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/490779617/","id":490779617,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69461997/107/crocker-v-cassava-sciences-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-20T14:05:40.326475-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-23T04:50:36.484207-07:00","sha1":"cc0c14652d3a7203c03760c8c63541c9efcb461c","page_count":16,"file_size":271431,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172816897/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172816897.107.0_1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172816897/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172816897.107.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:24-cv-01525-DAE Document 107 Filed 08/20/26 Page 1 of 16\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n AUSTIN DIVISION\n\n\nCARLOS P\u00c9REZ-COTAPOS UGARTE, Case No. 1:24-CV-01525-DAE\nMARIA ISABEL URETA BAZ\u00c1N,\nCARLOS P\u00c9REZ-COTAPOS\nSUBERCASEAUX, INVERSIONES ANE\nMIREN LIMITADA, SHERYL GROVE, and\nHOORIEH ALAGHEMAND, Individually\nand on Behalf of All Others Similarly\nSituated,\n\n Plaintiffs,\n\n v.\n\nCASSAVA SCIENCES, INC., REMI\nBARBIER, RICHARD JON BARRY,\nLINDSAY BURNS, JAMES W. KUPIEC,\nand ERIC SCHOEN,\n\n Defendants.\n\n\nIN RE CASSAVA SCIENCES INC. Case No. 1:21-CV-00751-DAE\nSECURITIES LITIGATION\n\n\nUGARTE PLAINTIFFS\u2019 REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF OPPOSED MOTION TO\n VIEW SEALED DOCUMENTS\n\f Case 1:24-cv-01525-DAE Document 107 Filed 08/20/26 Page 2 of 16\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n\nPRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................................................... 1\nARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 2\n A. The Sealed Filings Directly And Fundamentally Affect Ugarte. ........................... 2\n B. The Ugarte Plaintiffs Have The Right To View The Sealed Filings. ..................... 4\n C. By Defendants\u2019 Own Admission, Any Confidentiality Considerations Are Now\n Moot. ....................................................................................................................... 6\n D. Local Rule CV-88(f) Does Not Protect The Sealed Filings. .................................. 7\n E. The Defendants Falsely Characterize The Breadth Of The Sealed Filings. ........... 9\nCONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 10\n\n\n\n\n i\n\f Case 1:24-cv-01525-DAE Document 107 Filed 08/20/26 Page 3 of 16\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n\nCases Page(s)\n\nApplication of Eisenberg,\n 654 F.2d 1107 (5th Cir. 1981) ...............................................................................................4, 5\n\nDube v. Eagle Glob. Logistics,\n 314 F.3d 193 (5th Cir. 2002) .....................................................................................................4\n\nKinoy v. Mitchell,\n 67 F.R.D. 1 (S.D.N.Y. 1975) .................................................................................................4, 5\n\nSelect Interior Concepts, Inc. v. Pental,\n 2020 WL 2132575 (N.D. Tex. May 5, 2020) ............................................................................8\n\n Rules\n\nLocal Rule CV-5.2 ...............................................................................................................4, 5, 6, 9\n\nLocal Rule CV-88 ....................................................................................................................7, 8, 9\n\n\n\n\n ii\n\f Case 1:24-cv-01525-DAE Document 107 Filed 08/20/26 Page 4 of 16\n\n\n\n\n Carlos P\u00e9rez-Cotapos Ugarte, Maria Isabel Ureta Baz\u00e1n, Carlos P\u00e9rez-Cotapos\n\nSubercaseaux, Inversiones Ane Miren Limitada, Sheryl Grove, and Hoorieh Alaghemand\n\n(collectively, the \u201cUgarte plaintiffs\u201d) respectfully submit this reply in further support of their\n\nopposed motion to view sealed documents in In Re Cassava Sciences, Inc. Securities Litigation,\n\nNo. 1:21-cv-00751-DAE (W.D. Tex.) (the \u201cConsolidated Action\u201d; in docket citations, \u201cCA\u201d).1\n\n PRELIMINARY STATEMENT\n\n The thesis of the Defendants\u2019 Opposition appears to be that, if they can incant the phrase\n\n\u201cmediation communications\u201d enough times\u201437 times in 8 pages\u2014they can avoid engaging with\n\ntheir legal responsibility to share their sealed filings regarding consolidation with the very parties\n\nthey seek to consolidate. Indeed, the Opposition (which does not cite even a single case) materially\n\nmischaracterizes the facts, the record, the law, and the Court\u2019s own rulings.\n\n The Opposition claims, for example, that when it denied consolidation, \u201cthe Court agreed\n\nthat the [sealed] materials were irrelevant,\u201d and that \u201cthe Court did not consider those materials in\n\nits Order.\u201d Not so: In its order, the Court found that at least some of the materials were \u201cdirectly\n\nrelevant to Defendants\u2019 motion to consolidate.\u201d The Opposition claims, too, that the sealed filings\n\n\u201cneed not be considered by the Court\u201d: Yet it uses an ellipsis to excise from the transcript the\n\nvery place where the Defendants invited the Court to review certain of these materials. The\n\nOpposition goes on to claim that the Defendants have never sought to maintain confidentiality\n\nover yet further portions of the sealed materials. There is just one problem: Their emails in which\n\nthey did just that. The list goes on.\n\n This is too much. The Defendants cannot seriously dispute the fact that the sealed filings,\n\n\n\n1\n The motion to view sealed documents (\u201cMotion\u201d or \u201cMot.\u201d) was filed at ECF No. 95 in\nUgarte, and ECF No. 389 in the Consolidated Action. The Defendants\u2019 opposition (\u201cOpposition\u201d\nor \u201cOpp.\u201d) was filed at ECF No. 103 in Ugarte, and ECF No. 398 in the Consolidated Action.\n 1\n\f Case 1:24-cv-01525-DAE Document 107 Filed 08/20/26 Page 5 of 16\n\n\n\n\nwhich relate to an attempt by the Defendants to dispose of the claims in Ugarte, directly and\n\nfundamentally affect Ugarte. And they cannot seriously dispute the fact that the law gives the\n\nUgarte plaintiffs a fundamental right to access such filings.\n\n Put simply, if the Defendants wanted to insist on the confidentiality of the documents, the\n\nDefendants could have sought to remove the documents from the record. Instead, they declared\n\nthe issue of confidentiality moot\u2014but still refuse to share these fundamental filings with the\n\nUgarte plaintiffs. Even now, as they object to the Magistrate Judge\u2019s order denying consolidation,\n\nthey are continuing to direct that briefing be filed under seal, while not providing that briefing\n\nto the Ugarte plaintiffs. There is simply no justification for doing so.\n\n ARGUMENT\n\n A. The Sealed Filings Directly And Fundamentally Affect Ugarte.\n\n As the Ugarte plaintiffs explained in their Motion, the sealed filings directly and\n\nfundamentally affect Ugarte. Mot. at 3\u20135. They affect not just whether Ugarte continues as a\n\ncase, but whether the Ugarte plaintiffs will be able to continue to prosecute their claims. Id. at 3;\n\nsee also Ugarte ECF No. 102 at 8\u201311 (explaining how the Defendants are seeking to use\n\nconsolidation to dismiss the Ugarte claims); CA ECF No. 396 at 8\u201311 (same). In addition,\n\nstatements made during oral argument revealed that, in the briefing that the Defendants seek to\n\nhide from the Ugarte plaintiffs, the parties to the Consolidated Action have been discussing how\n\ntheir settlement does, or does not, affect the claims in Ugarte. Mot. at 3\u20134.\n\n The Defendants do not dispute either of these facts. On the first issue, they claim only that\n\n\u201c[w]hether consolidation is dispositive of Ugarte has no bearing on whether the mediation\n\ncommunications are relevant.\u201d Opp. at 5. Thus, they claim not that the sealed briefing on\n\nconsolidation is irrelevant to Ugarte, but that\u2014supposedly and incongruously\u2014the sealed briefing\n\non consolidation is irrelevant to consolidation. On the second issue, meanwhile, they deny neither\n 2\n\f Case 1:24-cv-01525-DAE Document 107 Filed 08/20/26 Page 6 of 16\n\n\n\n\nthat they have been litigating the supposed effects of the settlement on Ugarte, nor that such effects\n\nare directly relevant to Ugarte: They claim only that \u201c[t]he Ugarte Plaintiffs have no \u2018right\u2019 to\u201d\n\nthis material. Opp. at 7. This is incorrect, as explained below (at \u00a7 D). But in focusing on right\n\nrather than substance, the Defendants concede the relevance of the sealed briefing to Ugarte.\n\n Rather than contest the Ugarte plaintiffs\u2019 arguments, therefore, the Defendants pivot to\n\nclaiming that \u201cthe sealed filings are irrelevant to consolidation.\u201d Opp. at 4 (bold omitted) (initial\n\ncapitals omitted). They also repeatedly claim that \u201cthe Court agreed that the materials were\n\nirrelevant,\u201d and that \u201cthe Court did not consider those materials in its Order addressing\n\nconsolidation.\u201d Opp. at 5; see also id. at 3, 4 (similar).\n\n The Defendants\u2019 assertions are false\u2014as one might expect, given that the filings that they\n\nclaim \u201care irrelevant to consolidation\u201d include both a brief filed in opposition to consolidation, and\n\na reply in support of consolidation. CA ECF Nos. 345, 347. And the lengths to which they go in\n\norder to plead their case are striking.\n\n First, in its order denying consolidation, the Court expressly held that at least certain of the\n\nsealed materials are \u201cdirectly relevant to Defendants\u2019 motion to consolidate.\u201d Ugarte ECF No.\n\n92 at 5 (emphasis added); CA ECF No. 384 at 5 (emphasis added). The Court thus granted the\n\nconsolidated plaintiffs\u2019 motion for leave to file supplemental authority. Id. Yet despite the fact\n\nthat the Court found this to be \u201cdirectly relevant,\u201d the related briefing remains sealed or, in one\n\ncase, heavily redacted. See Ugarte ECF No. 95-3 at 2 (listing filings); CA ECF No. 389-3 at 2\n\n(same). There is thus no basis for the Defendants\u2019 claim that the Court held that \u201cthe sealed filings\n\nare irrelevant to consolidation.\u201d Stating as fact something that is false does not make it true.\n\n Second, at oral argument, even the Defendants consented to the Court reviewing other\n\nportions of the sealed filings, stating that \u201c[i]f the Court would find it helpful in resolving the\n\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 1:24-cv-01525-DAE Document 107 Filed 08/20/26 Page 7 of 16\n\n\n\n\nissues, we have no concern with that.\u201d Ugarte ECF No. 95-5 at 11:23\u201312:3; CA ECF No. 389-5\n\nat 11:23\u201312:3. Yet when the Defendants quote this portion of the transcript, arguing that such\n\nmaterials \u201cwere not relevant to the Motion to Consolidate and need not be considered by the\n\nCourt,\u201d they use an ellipsis to excise their express invitation to the Court to consider these\n\nmaterials. Opp. at 2. This is improper, to say the least. See Dube v. Eagle Glob. Logistics, 314\n\nF.3d 193, 195 (5th Cir. 2002) (noting impropriety of \u201cmisrepresenting the record and\n\nusing ellipses to misrepresent statements out of context\u201d).\n\n Third, even leaving aside these gross misrepresentations of the record, the Defendants seek\n\nto redefine the definition of relevance. The question is whether the sealed filings are relevant to\n\nUgarte, which even the Defendants cannot argue otherwise. It is not whether, in the Defendants\u2019\n\nview, the Court did or did not rely on the filings in deciding their motion to consolidate.2\n\n B. The Ugarte Plaintiffs Have The Right To View The Sealed Filings.\n\n The Motion explained the fundamental due-process right of the Ugarte plaintiffs to view\n\nthe sealed filings. Mot. at 5\u20138. As it noted, \u201c[o]ur adversarial legal system generally does not\n\ntolerate ex parte determinations on the merits of a civil case. . . . [T]he right granted a party by the\n\ndue process clause to a full and fair hearing encompasses the individual\u2019s right to be aware of and\n\nrefute the evidence against the merits of his case.\u201d Application of Eisenberg, 654 F.2d 1107, 1112\n\n(5th Cir. 1981); (citing Kinoy v. Mitchell, 67 F.R.D. 1, 15 (S.D.N.Y. 1975)); see Kinoy, 67 F.R.D.\n\nat 15 (\u201cOur system of justice does not encompass ex parte determinations on the merits of cases\n\nin civil litigation.\u201d). This is why the local rules mandate that \u201c[c]ounsel for a party moving to keep\n\nany document under seal is responsible for serving a copy of the sealed document on all counsel\n\n\n2\n For that matter, the fact that the Magistrate Judge did not cite sealed material when deciding\nthe motion to consolidate does not mean that she did not rely on it. And by keeping the issue of\nconsolidation alive through their objection to the order, the Defendants cannot say which portions\nof the sealed filings will, or will not, be relevant to the Court\u2019s ultimate determination.\n 4\n\f Case 1:24-cv-01525-DAE Document 107 Filed 08/20/26 Page 8 of 16\n\n\n\n\nof record.\u201d Local Rule CV-5.2(e).\n\n The Defendants wave away the Motion\u2019s arguments by stating \u201cPlaintiffs have no \u2018due\n\nprocess\u2019 right to obtain these communications\u201d because, they claim, the sealed filings are\n\nconfidential. Opp. at 4. The Defendants give no authority for this claim beyond their own say so;\n\nindeed, their Opposition cites a grand total of zero cases.\n\n The law rebuts the Defendants\u2019 ipse dixit argument. Eisenberg and Kinoy do not hold that\n\na party\u2019s due-process right \u201cto be aware of and refute the evidence against the merits of his case\u201d\n\ndisappears if the other party claims that the evidence is confidential\u2014let alone through a naked\n\nassertion. Rather, as Kinoy puts it flatly and without exception, \u201c[o]ur system of justice does not\n\nencompass ex parte determinations on the merits of cases in civil litigation.\u201d 67 F.R.D. at 15.\n\n Moreover, as Kinoy continues, the law has a way of dealing with confidentiality that\n\nconflicts with a due-process right: \u201cEither the documents are privileged, and the litigation must\n\ncontinue as best it can without them, or they should be disclosed at least to the parties, in which\n\ncase the Court will rule after full argument on the merits.\u201d Id. (footnote omitted). The Defendants\n\nhad the right to, and did, file a motion to strike. But they have since conceded that the motion is\n\nmoot\u2014and, subsequently, they have continued to direct the consolidated Plaintiffs to file papers\n\nregarding consolidation under seal. See CA ECF Nos. 395 397 (motion to seal, and sealed\n\nresponse to opposition to the Defendants\u2019 objection to the Magistrate Judge\u2019s order denying\n\nconsolidation). The Defendants cannot have it both ways.\n\n In the final paragraph of their brief, the Defendants attempt to rebut Local Rule CV-5.2(e),\n\ncalling it \u201ca straightforward rule making filing parties responsible for service of sealed documents\n\n. . . because the Court\u2019s electronic filing system does not serve sealed documents.\u201d Opp. at 7. That\n\nis exactly the point: Because a sealed document is not automatically served or otherwise\n\n\n\n 5\n\f Case 1:24-cv-01525-DAE Document 107 Filed 08/20/26 Page 9 of 16\n\n\n\n\naccessible, the Defendants must ensure that the parties can access that document. Nor can the\n\nDefendants limit their duty through the local rule\u2019s requirement of \u201cserving . . . all counsel of\n\nrecord.\u201d Local Rule CV-5.2(e). The rule requires service on \u201call\u201d counsel of record, not just those\n\nfor the docket in which they chose to file specific documents. Indeed, the most important counsel\n\nof record to serve are those for the case they are attempting to consolidate.\n\n C. By Defendants\u2019 Own Admission, Any Confidentiality Considerations Are Now\n Moot.\n\n The Motion likewise explained that, even if the sealed filings were once so confidential\n\nthat they could not be shared with the parties to whom they directly pertained, the Defendants have\n\nnow admitted that this issue is moot. Mot. at 8\u20139. At oral argument, the Defendants stated that,\n\nwhile in their view there had been \u201ctechnical[]\u201d or \u201carguabl[e]\u201d violations of confidentiality, now,\n\n\u201cwe do believe they\u2019re moot, and that\u2019s the most important consideration.\u201d Id. at 8. They thus\n\nconfirmed that the Court no longer needed to rule on the three motions regarding confidentiality:\n\nthe Defendants\u2019 motion to strike, and the consolidated plaintiffs\u2019 motions to file notice of\n\nsupplemental authority, and to lodge the mediator\u2019s ruling. Thus, as the Motion explained, even\n\nif there had once been concerns about confidentiality, there would no longer be any reason to deny\n\nthe Ugarte plaintiffs access to the briefing. Id. at 9.\n\n The Defendants respond by attempting to redefine their reason for declaring the issue moot.\n\nAs they tell it now, \u201cDefendants agreed that their Motion to Strike those communications was\n\nmoot only because all relevant parties and the Court agreed that the [sealed] materials were\n\nirrelevant.\u201d Opp. at 5. But this is not what the Defendants said at oral argument\u2014in two ways.\n\n First, at oral argument, the Defendants declared the issue moot because \u201cthere is no dispute\n\nwe have an agreement. . . . And, as we understand it, the mediation communications were\n\nsubmitted by Robbins Geller in order to prove the existence of an agreement. Assuming that is\n\n\n 6\n\f Case 1:24-cv-01525-DAE Document 107 Filed 08/20/26 Page 10 of 16\n\n\n\n\nthe case, there is no dispute on that point now. We all agree there is an agreement.\u201d Ugarte ECF\n\nNo. 95-5 at 11:3\u201319; CA ECF No. 389-5 at 11:3\u201319. That is to say, the Defendants did not claim\n\nthat the briefing over which they claimed confidentiality was irrelevant; rather, they claimed that\n\nthe dispute underlying it (whether there was, or was not, a settlement) was no longer contested.\n\nAn issue being uncontested does not make it irrelevant. Here, the issue was plainly relevant and,\n\ncontrary to the Defendants\u2019 claims, germane to the Court\u2019s ruling: As it held, the consolidated\n\nplaintiffs\u2019 supplemental authority, which was about the existence of a settlement, \u201cis directly\n\nrelevant to Defendants\u2019 motion to consolidate.\u201d Ugarte ECF No. 92 at 5; CA ECF No. 384 at 5.\n\nIn fact, far from \u201call relevant parties and the Court agree[ing] that the [sealed] materials were\n\nirrelevant,\u201d Opp. at 5, no one at oral argument raised the question of their relevance at all.3\n\n Second, the Defendants did not agree that the issue of confidentiality was moot \u201conly\n\nbecause all relevant parties and the Court agreed that the materials were irrelevant.\u201d Opp. at 5. In\n\nfact, the Defendants themselves were the first to raise mootness: Before either the consolidated\n\nplaintiffs or the Court opined on the issue, the Defendants opened oral argument by declaring that\n\n\u201cthere have been developments; and I think that has essentially resolved or otherwise mooted those\n\nthree pending motions.\u201d Ugarte ECF No. 95-5 at 10:23\u201312:2; CA ECF No. 389-5 at 10:23\u201312:2.\n\nMuch as they now try to add conditions to their declaration, those conditions did not exist when\n\nthey made it.\n\n D. Local Rule CV-88(f) Does Not Protect The Sealed Filings.\n\n As the Motion stated, the sealed filings appear to be particularly relevant to Ugarte,\n\nbecause\u2014as revealed at oral argument\u2014the Defendants and consolidated plaintiffs have,\n\nunbeknownst to the Ugarte plaintiffs, been briefing the extent to which their settlement does, or\n\n\n3\n The fact that materials related to consolidation are still being filed under seal further belies\nthe Defendants\u2019 assertion that the parties consider such materials to be irrelevant.\n 7\n\f Case 1:24-cv-01525-DAE Document 107 Filed 08/20/26 Page 11 of 16\n\n\n\n\ndoes not, affect Ugarte. Mot. at 3\u20135. As it turned out, the Defendants have been seeking to use\n\nthe Consolidated Action to obtain a settlement that would somehow affect Ugarte. See id.\n\n The Defendants do not deny this. Instead, they rely on Local Rule CV-88(f) to block the\n\nUgarte plaintiffs from access to this exceptionally relevant briefing. Obj. at 1, 3, 4, 7. That rule,\n\nas the Defendants quote in part, states that:\n\n Except as otherwise provided in this rule, or as agreed by the participants, a\n communication relating to the subject matter of any civil or criminal dispute made\n by any participant during an ADR procedure, whether before or after the institution\n of formal judicial proceedings, is confidential, may not be disclosed, may not be\n used as evidence against the participant in any judicial or administrative\n proceeding, and does not constitute a waiver of any existing privileges or\n immunities.\n\nLocal Rule CV-88(f); see Opp. at 7 (quoting the rule but excising the exceptions at the beginning).\n\nThe Defendants use the rule to claim that the Ugarte plaintiffs are seeking \u201cto use Cassava\u2019s\n\npositions in mediation communications as evidence against Cassava in this suit.\u201d Opp. at 1. This\n\nis incorrect, for two reasons.\n\n First, the rule does not protect every mediation communication; it protects only those\n\n\u201crelating to the subject matter\u201d of the dispute. Not once in their 37 recitations of the phrase\n\n\u201cmediation communications\u201d do the Defendants suggest that the sealed materials meet this\n\nstandard.4 Instead, it appears that they relate to the (a) the existence of a settlement, and (b)\n\nDefendants\u2019 positions on the scope of the settlement. This is a crucial difference: The existence\n\nand scope of the settlement are unrelated to the facts of the Defendants\u2019 fraud regarding Simufilam.\n\n\n\n4\n Just by itself, this is sufficient to grant the Motion. \u201cAs the party seeking to seal and\nmaintain under seal certain documents, [the Defendants] had and continue to have the burden of\novercoming the strong presumption in favor of public access by coming forward with sufficiently\ncompelling reasons to justify overriding the public policy favoring disclosure.\u201d Select Interior\nConcepts, Inc. v. Pental, 2020 WL 2132575, at *3 (N.D. Tex. May 5, 2020) (quotation marks\nomitted). By not even attempting to meet the standard in Local Rule CV-88(f), the Defendants\nhave abdicated their responsibility for meeting the burden for maintaining the filings under seal.\n 8\n\f Case 1:24-cv-01525-DAE Document 107 Filed 08/20/26 Page 12 of 16\n\n\n\n\nSo too do the Ugarte plaintiffs have an exceptional interest in knowing what the Defendants have\n\nbeen saying about the scope of the settlement behind their backs.\n\n Second, even were this not the case, Local Rule CV-88(f) is not absolute. As with their\n\nmisleading ellipsis, the Defendants excise the first portion of the rule: \u201cExcept as otherwise\n\nprovided in this rule.\u201d Compare Opp. at 7 with Local Rule CV-88(f). And, indeed, the rule\n\nprovides otherwise: \u201cIf this section conflicts with other legal requirements for disclosure of\n\ncommunications or materials, the issue of confidentiality may be presented to the court\u201d to\n\ndetermine, amongst other things, whether they \u201care subject to disclosure.\u201d Local Rule\n\nCV-88(f)(3). For all the reasons detailed above, this is the case here. The Ugarte plaintiffs have\n\nlegal and due-process rights to the sealed filings. If the Defendants truly believed the materials\n\nwere confidential and the rule had been violated, they had the opportunity to seek to strike them.\n\nInstead, they declared the issue moot. In doing so, they consented to the materials remaining in\n\nthe record\u2014where the Ugarte plaintiffs must have access to them.\n\n E. The Defendants Falsely Characterize The Breadth Of The Sealed Filings.\n\n As the Motion stated, the Defendants\u2019 claim that every line in the two dozen or so sealed\n\nfilings is confidential is simply not plausible. Mot. at 2, 7. By way of example\u2014but certainly not\n\nan exclusive list\u2014the Ugarte plaintiffs cited the motions to seal themselves, which the local rules\n\ndictate should not include confidential information. Id. at 7; Local Rule CV-5.2(c).\n\n Presumably recognizing the untenability of their position, the Defendants bury their\n\nresponse in a footnote: \u201cThis is not accurate. The materials Defendants seek to protect are the\n\nconfidential mediation communications themselves, and the briefing referencing confidential\n\nmediation communications, which was the basis for all relevant motions to seal. Defendants have\n\nnever taken a position on whether the one-paragraph Motion to Seal should be unsealed.\u201d Opp. at\n\n6 n.1.\n 9\n\f Case 1:24-cv-01525-DAE Document 107 Filed 08/20/26 Page 13 of 16\n\n\n\n\n Again, there is simply no chance that four fifths of the briefing on consolidation constitutes\n\nor concerns \u201cconfidential mediation communications,\u201d and it is not credible for the Defendants to\n\nassert as much. In addition, the Defendants\u2019 claim that they \u201chave never taken a position on\n\nwhether the one-paragraph Motion to Seal should be unsealed\u201d is both false and revealing.\n\n This statement is false, because, before filing the Motion, the Ugarte plaintiffs emailed the\n\nDefendants to confirm this exact question: \u201cis it your position that all documents that were filed\n\nunder seal contain \u2018confidential mediation communications\u2019? I note that the motions to seal were\n\nthemselves filed under seal. Did even the motions to seal contain \u2018confidential mediation\n\ncommunications\u2019?\u201d Ugarte ECF No. 95-4 at 2; CA ECF No. 389-4 at 2. The Defendants\n\nresponded unequivocally: \u201cThe materials that remain under seal in the Consolidated Action are\n\nthe confidential mediation and settlement communications that the Consolidated Action plaintiffs\n\nput before the Court in their opposition, and the briefing that quotes or responds to them. . . . Our\n\nposition is unchanged: the sealed materials reflect confidential mediation and settlement\n\ncommunications and should remain sealed.\u201d Ugarte ECF No. 95-4 at 1\u20132; CA ECF No. 398-4 at\n\n1\u20132. Once again, stating as fact something that is false does not make it true.\n\n The statement is also revealing, because it shows that the Defendants used only a single\n\nparagraph to shield 80% of the briefing on their motion to consolidate from the parties most\n\naffected by their motion. It begs the question of whether they met their burden of shielding these\n\ndocuments from just the public. And, critically, it begs the question of whether, in their\n\nperfunctory request, the Defendants informed the Court that they were not just attempting to seal\n\ndocuments from the public\u2014but from the very parties whose claims they sought to eliminate.\n\n CONCLUSION\n\n The Court should grant the Motion.\n\n\n\n 10\n\f Case 1:24-cv-01525-DAE Document 107 Filed 08/20/26 Page 14 of 16\n\n\n\n\nDated: August 20, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n\n\n Luc W. M. Mitchell (pro hac vice)\n (State of New York Juris No. 5671037)\n POMERANTZ LLP\n Jeremy A. Lieberman (pro hac vice)\n (State of New York Juris No. 4161352)\n 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor\n New York, New York 10016\n Telephone: (212) 661-1100\n Facsimile: (917) 463-1044\n Email: lmitchell@pomlaw.com\n jalieberman@pomlaw.com\n\n BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ &\n GROSSMAN, LLC\n Peretz Bronstein (pro hac vice)\n (State of New York Juris No. 2155067)\n 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600\n New York, New York 10165\n Telephone: (212) 697-6484\n Facsimile: (212) 697-7296\n Email: peretz@bgandg.com\n\n Michael J. Boyle (pro hac vice)\n (State of Ohio Juris No. 0091162)\n 4200 Regent Street, Suite 200\n Columbus, OH 43219\n Telephone: (614) 578-5582\n Email: mboyle@bgandg.com\n\n Counsel for Plaintiffs and\n Co-Lead Counsel for the Class\n\n THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC\n Willie C. Briscoe (Tx. Bar Number\n 24001788)\n 12700 Park Central Drive, Suite 520\n Dallas, Texas 75251\n Telephone: (972) 521-6868\n Facsimile: (281) 254-7789\n Email: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com\n\n Counsel for Plaintiffs and\n\n 11\n\fCase 1:24-cv-01525-DAE Document 107 Filed 08/20/26 Page 15 of 16\n\n\n\n\n Liaison Counsel for the Class\n\n THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.\n Phillip Kim (pro hac vice application\n forthcoming)\n (State of New York Juris No. 4145397)\n 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor\n New York, NY 10116\n Telephone: (212) 686-1060\n Facsimile: (212) 202-3827\n Email: philkim@rosenlegal.com\n\n Additional Counsel for Plaintiffs\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\f Case 1:24-cv-01525-DAE Document 107 Filed 08/20/26 Page 16 of 16\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I, Luc W. M. Mitchell, hereby certify that on August 20, 2026, the foregoing was served\n\nupon each attorney of record through the Court\u2019s CM/ECF system.\n\n\n\n\n Luc W. M. Mitchell (pro hac vice)\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-08-20T20:41:51.354602-07:00","document_number":"107","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181037241385","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Response in Support of Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-20T14:05:40.306934-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-16T10:45:42.072289-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-20","time_filed":"15:51:30","entry_number":107,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-20.001","pacer_sequence_number":441,"description":"REPLY in Support, filed by Hoorieh Alaghemand, Maria Isable Ureta Bazan, Sheryl Grove, Inversiones Ane Miren Limitada, Carlos Perez-Cotapos Subercaseaux, Carlos Perez-Cotapos Ugarte, re 95 MOTION UGARTE PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSED MOTION TO VIEW SEALED DOCUMENTS filed by Plaintiff Maria Isable Ureta Bazan, Plaintiff Inversiones Ane Miren Limitada, Plaintiff Carlos Perez-Cotapos Ugarte, Plaintiff Carlos Perez-Cotapos Subercaseaux, Plaintiff Hoorieh Alaghemand, Plaintiff Sheryl Grove (Mitchell, Luc) Modified on 8/25/2026 to clarify document title (tgp). (Entered: 08/20/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/474228033/","id":474228033,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489722055/","id":489722055,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-08-12T14:05:17.241573-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-12T14:05:17.241589-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Motions Referred","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-12T14:05:17.230075-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-12T14:05:17.230091-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-12","time_filed":"15:43:58","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-12.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/474171922/","id":474171922,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489664062/","id":489664062,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-08-12T10:06:41.951468-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-12T10:06:41.951488-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-12T10:06:41.919811-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-12T10:06:41.919837-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-12","time_filed":"11:42:00","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-12.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/474171731/","id":474171731,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489663871/","id":489663871,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-08-12T10:06:30.724829-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-12T10:06:30.724850-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-12T10:06:30.708807-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-12T10:06:30.708835-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-12","time_filed":"11:47:23","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-12.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/474006277/","id":474006277,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489493312/","id":489493312,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69461997/104/crocker-v-cassava-sciences-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-11T09:20:20.520103-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-11T09:20:20.527775-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"104","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181037169958","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Extension of Time to File Response/Reply","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-11T09:20:20.497848-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-19T16:07:33.958189-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-11","time_filed":"11:13:21","entry_number":104,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-11.001","pacer_sequence_number":424,"description":"MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 95 MOTION UGARTE PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSED MOTION TO VIEW SEALED DOCUMENTS, 103 Response to Motion,, by Hoorieh Alaghemand, Maria Isable Ureta Bazan, Sheryl Grove, Inversiones Ane Miren Limitada, Carlos Perez-Cotapos Subercaseaux, Carlos Perez-Cotapos Ugarte. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Mitchell, Luc) (Entered: 08/11/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/473932123/","id":473932123,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69461997/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489415952/","id":489415952,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69461997/103/crocker-v-cassava-sciences-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-10T15:06:33.581377-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-22T14:57:01.266545-07:00","sha1":"85452b689236cd7b4df62d14f66427769d973631","page_count":11,"file_size":262340,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172816897/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172816897.103.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172816897/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172816897.103.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:24-cv-01525-DAE Document 103 Filed 08/10/26 Page 1 of 11\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n AUSTIN DIVISION\n\n\nCARLOS P\u00c9REZ-COTAPOS UGARTE, Case No. 1:24-cv-01525-DAE\nMARIA ISABEL URETA BAZ\u00c1N,\nCARLOS P\u00c9REZ-COTAPOS\nSUBERCASEAUX, INVERSIONES ANE\nMIREN LIMITADA, SHERYL GROVE, and\nHOORIEH ALAGHEMAND, Individually\nand on Behalf of All Others Similarly\nSituated,\n\n Plaintiffs,\n\n v.\n\nCASSAVA SCIENCES, INC., REMI\nBARBIER, RICHARD JON BARRY,\nLINDSAY BURNS, JAMES W. KUPIEC,\nand ERIC SCHOEN,\n\n Defendants.\n\nIN RE CASSAVA SCIENCES, INC. Case No. 1:21-cv-00751-DAE\nSECURITIES LITIGATION\n\n\n\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 RESPONSE TO UGARTE PLAINTIFFS\u2019\n MOTION TO VIEW SEALED DOCUMENTS\n\f Case 1:24-cv-01525-DAE Document 103 Filed 08/10/26 Page 2 of 11\n\n\n\n\n The Ugarte Plaintiffs\u2019 Motion to View Sealed Documents is an improper attempt to pry\n\ninto confidential settlement discussions. It is contrary to law and should be denied.\n\n The Ugarte Plaintiffs have no \u201cdue process\u201d right to examine mediation communications\n\nbetween Cassava and another party. And far from being \u201cfundamental\u201d to this Court\u2019s\n\nconsolidation decision, the mediation communications are irrelevant to that analysis. This is why\n\nthe relevant parties and the Court agreed that Defendants\u2019 Motion to Strike those communications\n\nwas moot\u2014the Court had no reason to consider or rely on the mediation communications in\n\ndeciding the Motion to Consolidate, and did not do so.\n\n Indeed, Plaintiffs\u2019 Motion concedes that they seek the confidential communications for an\n\nimproper purpose\u2014to use Cassava\u2019s positions in mediation communications as evidence against\n\nCassava in this suit. This is barred by Local Rule CV-88(f).\n\n For each of these reasons, Plaintiffs\u2019 Motion to View Sealed Documents must be denied.\n\n BACKGROUND\n\n 1. On September 18, 2025, pursuant to this Court\u2019s Consolidation Order, Dkt. 58, Defendants\n\nfiled a Motion to Consolidate the Ugarte action into the Consolidated Securities Litigation, In re\n\nCassava Sciences, Inc., 21-cv-00751-DAE (the \u201cConsolidated Action\u201d). Dkt. 338.\n\n 2. Lead Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action (\u201cLead Plaintiffs\u201d) then filed an Opposition to\n\nthe Motion to Consolidate, attaching a series of mediation communications between Defendants\n\nand Lead Plaintiffs. Dkt. 340-1. Lead Plaintiffs filed the mediation communications under seal.\n\n 3. Just a week later, Defendants promptly filed a Motion to Strike, explaining that Lead\n\nPlaintiffs\u2019 attempt to use mediation communications as evidence violated the parties\u2019 Mediation\n\nConfidentiality Agreement, as well as this Court\u2019s Local Rule CV-88(f). Dkt. 343-1. Because the\n\nMotion to Strike referenced the confidential communications, Defendants filed it under seal.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 1:24-cv-01525-DAE Document 103 Filed 08/10/26 Page 3 of 11\n\n\n\n\n 4. Lead Plaintiffs filed an Opposition to the Motion to Strike. The primary basis of the\n\nOpposition was that the mediation communications were submitted for the sole purpose of proving\n\nthe existence of an agreement in principle between Defendants Cassava and Eric Schoen (together\n\nthe \u201cCassava Defendants\u201d), on the one hand, and Lead Plaintiffs on the other, to settle the\n\nConsolidated Action. Dkt 353. Once again, because the Opposition addressed the confidential\n\nmediation communications, Lead Plaintiffs filed it under seal.\n\n 5. Nearly eight months later, on June 18, 2026, Lead Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary\n\nApproval of Settlement of the Consolidated Action, Dkt. 380, along with a Stipulation of\n\nSettlement executed by Lead Plaintiffs and the Cassava Defendants. Dkt. 381-1.\n\n 6. Later in June, Judge Hightower held a hearing on Defendants\u2019 Motion to Consolidate and\n\nMotion to Strike. At the outset of that hearing, the Court, Lead Plaintiffs, and Defendants all agreed\n\nthat, because the parties filed the Stipulation of Settlement just before the hearing, there was no\n\nlonger any dispute that Lead Plaintiffs and the Cassava Defendants had reached an agreement to\n\nsettle conditioned on a lawfully certified class. Accordingly, the mediation communications\n\nPlaintiffs submitted were not relevant to the Motion to Consolidate and need not be considered by\n\nthe Court. The Motion to Strike was therefore moot:\n\n MS. LOSEMAN [counsel for the Cassava Defendants]: Thank you, Your Honor. And I will\n be brief because, as you\u2019ve noted, there have been developments; and I think that has\n essentially resolved or otherwise mooted those three pending motions. So there is no\n dispute we have an agreement. As my colleague noted, it was filed earlier this week. There\n is a stipulation of settlement. That stipulation makes clear that despite the fact that two of\n the individual Defendants here did not sign the term sheet, they are still subject to the\n [releases] that will be provided if the settlement is approved by this Court . . .\n\n And, as we understand it, the mediation communications were submitted by Robbins Geller\n in order to prove the existence of an agreement. Assuming that is the case, there is no\n dispute on that point now. We all agree there is an agreement. There can be no other proper\n purpose to consider those mediation communications and so we don't think the Court\n should. It would be a violation of the local rule . . .\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 1:24-cv-01525-DAE Document 103 Filed 08/10/26 Page 4 of 11\n\n\n\n\n THE COURT: So it is your argument that your -- the Defendants\u2019 motion to strike as well\n as Plaintiffs\u2019 motions for leave and for in-camera review are all moot at this point?\n\n MS. LOSEMAN: That\u2019s correct, Your Honor.\n\n THE COURT: Okay. And you are no longer opposing -- I mean, you would -- if they\u2019re\n moot, you don\u2019t have to actually withdraw your motion or go ahead in seizing your\n opposition to Plaintiffs\u2019 motions for leave, but you believe that they\u2019re all moot?\n\n MS. LOSEMAN: We believe they\u2019re all moot. I mean, we do believe they're still technically,\n arguably a violation of the local rule, but we do believe they\u2019re moot, and that\u2019s the most\n important consideration.\n\n THE COURT: I understand. And that will certainly streamline our hearing today and I\u2019ll\n come back to the Plaintiffs to see if they agree . . .\n Mr. Drosman, do you agree with Ms. Loseman, that the motions -- all of these three\n related motions are moot? . . .\n And what about the -- so if Defendants, I believe their motion to strike is moot and your\n motion for in-camera review would similarly be moot?\n\n MR. DROSMAN [Lead Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel]: That bears on that very issue, Your Honor, so\n that would be moot, yes.\n\n Ex. C to Motion (Dkt. 389-5), June 24, 2026 Hearing Tr., 10:23-13:24\n\n 7. A few days later, Judge Hightower issued her Order addressing Defendants\u2019 Motions to\n\nStrike and Consolidate. Dkt. 384. In the Order, Judge Hightower confirmed the parties\u2019 agreement\n\nthat the settlement stipulation rendered the mediation communications irrelevant to consolidation,\n\nso the Motion to Strike was moot. Dkt. 384 at 5 (\u201cDefendants asked the Court to strike Plaintiffs\u2019\n\nsealed opposition to Defendants\u2019 motion to consolidate (Dkt. 345), arguing that the brief contains\n\nconfidential information and violates the parties\u2019 Mediation Confidentiality Agreement (\u201cMCA\u201d)\n\nand Local Rule CV-88(f). Dkt. 346. Plaintiffs asked the Court to review in camera Murphy\u2019s May\n\n3, 2026 ruling on the same question. At the hearing, the parties agreed that these motions now are\n\nmoot.\u201d). Accordingly, Judge Hightower\u2019s analysis and decision on the Motion to Consolidate does\n\nnot reference or rely on the confidential mediation communications. Dkt. 384 at 6-8.\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 1:24-cv-01525-DAE Document 103 Filed 08/10/26 Page 5 of 11\n\n\n\n\n 8. On July 13, Defendants filed their Objection to Judge Hightower\u2019s Order Denying\n\nDefendants\u2019 Motion to Consolidate. Dkt. 388. Defendants\u2019 Objection likewise does not reference\n\nor otherwise rely on the irrelevant confidential mediation communications.\n\n 9. Three weeks after the Court issued its Order addressing consolidation, a week after\n\nDefendants filed their Objection, and more than eight months after Lead Plaintiffs filed the\n\nmediation communications under seal, on July 20, 2026, the Ugarte Plaintiffs filed the instant\n\nMotion to View Sealed communications. Dkt. 389.\n\n ARGUMENT\n\n Plaintiffs\u2019 Motion is a transparent attempt to obtain Defendants\u2019 confidential mediation\n\ncommunications with another party in a related matter. Plaintiffs have no \u201cdue process\u201d right to\n\nobtain these communications. They are not relevant to the Motion to Consolidate and should never\n\nhave been submitted to the Court in the first place.\n\n\n I. The Sealed Filings Are Irrelevant to Consolidation\n\n Cassava\u2019s mediation communications with Lead Plaintiffs are not relevant to consolidation.\n\nAs Defendants explained in their Motion to Strike, Lead Plaintiffs\u2019 submission of these\n\ncommunications was improper in the first instance because it violated the parties\u2019 Mediation\n\nConfidentiality Agreement and Local Rule 88(f). Dkt. 343-1. But in any case, Lead Plaintiffs,\n\nDefendants, and the Court all agreed that, after the parties filed a stipulation of settlement, the\n\nmediation communications were irrelevant. That is why Lead Plaintiffs, Defendants, and the Court\n\nall agreed the Motion to Strike was moot. See Dkt. 389-5, June 24, 2026 Hearing Tr., 10:23-13:24;\n\nDkt. 384 at 6-8.\n\n Because those mediation communications are not relevant, the Court\u2019s Order Denying\n\nCassava\u2019s Motion to Consolidate does not rely on them. Dkt. 384 at 6-8. Defendants\u2019 Objection to\n\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 1:24-cv-01525-DAE Document 103 Filed 08/10/26 Page 6 of 11\n\n\n\n\nthe Court Order does not reference the mediation communications, much less rely on them. Dkt.\n\n388.\n\n Given the agreement of the relevant parties and the Court that the confidential mediation\n\ncommunications are irrelevant to consolidation, it is striking that the Ugarte Plaintiffs\u2019 primary\n\nargument is that \u201cthere can be no reasonable dispute that the materials . . . are fundamental to the\n\nUgarte action.\u201d Dkt. 389 at 3. Plaintiffs argue that the communications are \u201cfundamental\u201d to\n\nUgarte because (a) the sealed materials were included in briefing on consolidation, which (b) could\n\nbe dispositive of Ugarte. Dkt. 389 at 3. This is hollow logic. Whether consolidation is dispositive\n\nof Ugarte has no bearing on whether the mediation communications are relevant. And the mere\n\nfact that Lead Plaintiffs improperly submitted mediation communications does not make those\n\nmaterials relevant (let alone fundamental) to whether Ugarte should be consolidated. To the\n\ncontrary, Defendants agreed that their Motion to Strike those communications was moot only\n\nbecause all relevant parties and the Court agreed that the materials were irrelevant. And, of course,\n\nthe Court did not consider those materials in its Order addressing consolidation, confirming their\n\nirrelevance.\n\n\n II. The Ugarte Plaintiffs Do Not Have Any \u201cRight\u201d to View the Sealed Filings\n\n As explained in Defendants\u2019 Motion to Strike, Lead Plaintiffs\u2019 submission of confidential\n\nmediation communications was improper and irrelevant in the first instance. Dkt. 343-1. Lead\n\nPlaintiffs should never have filed them. The fact that Lead Plaintiffs (not Defendants) improperly\n\nfiled these mediation communications does not create a \u201cdue process\u201d right for plaintiffs in a\n\nrelated action to receive and review them.\n\n The Ugarte Plaintiffs\u2019 argument for why they have a \u201cright\u201d to view confidential mediation\n\ncommunications is revealing:\n\n\n\n 5\n\f Case 1:24-cv-01525-DAE Document 103 Filed 08/10/26 Page 7 of 11\n\n\n\n\n \u201cThey are . . . threatening the Ugarte plaintiffs\u2019 fundamental due process rights. If the cases\n are consolidated, the Ugarte plaintiffs will not be aware of the arguments that led to\n consolidation. And even if consolidation is denied, the Ugarte plaintiffs will be deprived\n of the knowledge of what positions the Defendants have taken.\u201d Dkt. 389 at 6.\n\nThe claim that, if the cases are consolidated, the Ugarte plaintiffs will not be aware of the\n\narguments that led to consolidation has zero merit. Judge Hightower plainly states over the course\n\nof three pages the Court\u2019s reasons for declining to consolidate the cases, Dkt. 384 at 6-8. None of\n\nthose reasons is based on the confidential mediation communications. Defendants\u2019 Objection to\n\nthat Order likewise does not cite the confidential mediation communications. Dkt. 388. In short,\n\nas the relevant parties and the Court acknowledged, the confidential mediation communications\n\nare not relevant to consolidation. If consolidation is granted (or denied), Plaintiffs will know\n\nexactly why.\n\n The Ugarte Plaintiffs\u2019 second claim, that, even if consolidation is denied, the Ugarte\n\nplaintiffs will be deprived of the knowledge of what positions the Defendants have taken,\n\ndemonstrates what the Ugarte Plaintiffs truly\u2014and improperly\u2014seek: disclosure of the\n\nconfidential mediation communications between Lead Plaintiffs and Defendants so that they can\n\nuse those communications against Cassava in their own case. 1 After all, if this request were really\n\nabout being able to litigate the consolidation issue, Plaintiffs would have sought to view the sealed\n\ncommunications during the eight months the Motion to Consolidate was pending before Judge\n\nHightower ruled.\n\n\n\n\n1\n The Ugarte Plaintiffs\u2019 Motion recognizes that the materials Defendants will not disclose are confidential mediation\ncommunications. It then asserts that \u201cthere is no chance that every line in every sealed brief comprises \u2018confidential\nmediation and settlement communications.\u2019 Indeed, the Defendants have refused to provide access to even their\nmotions to seal . . . .\u201d Dkt. 389 at 7. This is not accurate. The materials Defendants seek to protect are the confidential\nmediation communications themselves, and the briefing referencing confidential mediation communications, which\nwas the basis for all relevant motions to seal. Defendants have never taken a position on whether the one-paragraph\nMotion to Seal should be unsealed.\n\n\n 6\n\f Case 1:24-cv-01525-DAE Document 103 Filed 08/10/26 Page 8 of 11\n\n\n\n\n Indeed, the Ugarte Plaintiffs\u2019 Motion admits the improper purpose for which they seek the\n\nconfidential mediation communications: \u201c[F]rom the statements made during oral argument on the\n\nmotion to consolidate, the sealed briefing appears to include discussion about the manner in which\n\nthe parties believe the release included in their settlement affects (or does not affect) the claims in\n\nUgarte . . . . This argument directly relates to the Defendants\u2019 positions as to how the release in\n\nthe Consolidated Action affects, or does not affect, Ugarte.\u201d Dkt. 389 at 4-5. This flagrant effort\n\nby the Ugarte Plaintiffs to obtain disclosure of Defendants\u2019 mediation communications to use them\n\nagainst Defendants in parallel litigation is barred by this Court\u2019s Rules. See Local Rule CV-88(f)\n\n(\u201c[A] communication relating to the subject matter of any civil or criminal dispute made by any\n\nparticipant during an ADR procedure, whether before or after the institution of formal judicial\n\nproceedings, is confidential, may not be disclosed, may not be used as evidence against the\n\nparticipant in any judicial or administrative proceeding.\u201d). The Ugarte Plaintiffs have no \u201cright\u201d\n\nto these communications. Disclosure of those communications to the Ugarte Plaintiffs is expressly\n\nprohibited, as is their use of those communications against the Cassava Defendants.\n\n Finally, the Ugarte Plaintiffs do not have a right to Cassava\u2019s confidential mediation\n\ncommunications under Local Rule CV-5-2(e). Rule 5-2(e) is a straightforward rule making filing\n\nparties responsible for service of sealed documents on \u201call counsel of record\u201d in that case because\n\nthe Court\u2019s electronic filing system does not serve sealed documents. The rule does not create any\n\nindependent rights of access or obligations of service on counsel for parties in another case. The\n\nUgarte Plaintiffs of course acknowledge that they are not counsel of record in the Consolidated\n\nAction, but they claim that this is \u201cthe most technical of technicalities.\u201d Far from it. It is precisely\n\nbecause the Ugarte Plaintiffs are not counsel in the Consolidated Action that they were not party\n\nto the mediation of the Consolidated Action. And it is because they were not party to mediation\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\f Case 1:24-cv-01525-DAE Document 103 Filed 08/10/26 Page 9 of 11\n\n\n\n\nthat they are not privy to the confidential mediation communications between Lead Plaintiffs and\n\nDefendants and have no right to review or use them against Cassava.\n\n CONCLUSION\n\n For each of these reasons, the Court must deny the Ugarte Plaintiffs\u2019 Motion to View\n\nSealed Documents.\n\n\n\nDated: August 10, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n\n\n /s/ Gregg Costa\n Gregg Costa (Tx. Bar No. 24028160)\n Trey Cox (Tx. Bar No. 24003722)\n GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP\n 811 Main Street, Suite 3000\n Houston, TX 77002\n Tel: 346.718.6600\n gcosta@gibsondunn.com\n tcox@gibsondunn.com\n\n Monica K. Loseman (pro hac vice)\n Scott Campbell (pro hac vice)\n John Turquet Bravard (pro hac vice)\n GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP\n 1801 California Street\n Denver, CO 80202\n Tel: 303.298.5700\n mloseman@gibsondunn.com\n scampbell@gibsondunn.com\n jturquetbravard@gibsondunn.com\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\fCase 1:24-cv-01525-DAE Document 103 Filed 08/10/26 Page 10 of 11\n\n\n\n\n Counsel for Defendants Cassava Sciences,\n Inc. and Eric J. Schoen\n\n Douglas W. Greene\n Zachary R. Taylor\n BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP\n 45 Rockefeller Plaza\n New York, NY 10111\n Tel: 212.847.7090\n dgreene@bakerlaw.com\n\n C. Shawn Cleveland\n BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP\n 2850 N. Harwood Street, Suite 1100\n Dallas, TX 75201\n Tel: 214.210.1200\n scleveland@bakerlaw.com\n\n Counsel for Defendants Remi Barbier and\n Lindsay Burns\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\f Case 1:24-cv-01525-DAE Document 103 Filed 08/10/26 Page 11 of 11\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n The undersigned certifies that on August 10, 2026, a true and correct copy of the foregoing\n\nwas served electronically upon each attorney of record.\n\n /s/ Gregg Costa\n Gregg Costa\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-08-11T10:42:54.268461-07:00","document_number":"103","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181037165822","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Response to Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-10T15:06:33.548873-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-16T10:45:42.044451-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-10","time_filed":"16:14:05","entry_number":103,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-10.001","pacer_sequence_number":421,"description":"RESPONSE to Motion, filed by Remi Barbier, Richard Jon Barry, Lindsay Burns, Cassava Sciences, Inc., James W. Kupiec, Eric Schoen, re 95 MOTION UGARTE PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSED MOTION TO VIEW SEALED DOCUMENTS filed by Plaintiff Maria Isable Ureta Bazan, Plaintiff Inversiones Ane Miren Limitada, Plaintiff Carlos Perez-Cotapos Ugarte, Plaintiff Carlos Perez-Cotapos Subercaseaux, Plaintiff Hoorieh Alaghemand, Plaintiff Sheryl Grove (Costa, Gregg) (Entered: 08/10/2026)","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=69461997&page_size=40"}