2025-02-03 - CD Milan - STADA v. Accord Healthcare et al. - App_68658/2024

An application under Rule 262.1 b) has to be read only in regard to the documents filed in the main proceedings at the date the application was made; an application under Rule 262 1.b cannot in fact extend to the inspection of every document to-be-filed in the proceedings, since such an interpretation would undermine the discretion of the judge rapporteur in granting access to proceedings as well as the necessary adversarial process guaranteed to the parties by rule 262 1.b. Rule 4.1 RoP does not preclude the lodging by a legal representative of a non-digitally signed submission when this document or a written pleading also in the light of its electronic filing is unequivocally referable to the lawyer who lodged it. Whenever a party is to be heard under Rule 264 RoP, the choice of replacing the personal attendance by the filing of written submissions or by videoconferencing provided for in the same rule should not be exercised as to result detrimental to the parties' power to make their respective arguments.

Preliminary order on public file access (R. 262.1(b) RoP). Notable headnotes: (1) R. 262.1(b) application limited to documents filed at the date of application — cannot extend to future filings. (2) R. 4.1 RoP digital signature requirement: non-digitally signed submissions acceptable when unequivocally referable to the filing lawyer. (3) When a party is heard under R. 264 RoP, the choice between attendance, written submissions, or video must not be exercised to the detriment of the parties' ability to argue.