Thanks, Michael.
this not to briefing. Q&A, for up provide Illinois EO understandably update many system know it beyond as you comment our in to questions. all lawyers the litigation in issues, forum appropriate open will have I will we further which of deference because In court I I be Before parties provide their addressing and complicated on these an ought the
been the Illinois, widely against favor in and U.S. and Kamuda, damages, and a September, verdict the subsidiaries has Health Susan County, of the in her interest $XXX.X awarded As compensatory of first LLC. reported trial, returned amount the jury the plaintiff, in LLC, in EO damages, Sterigenics in media, prejudgment our punitive Sotera million Cook
United Sterigenics U.S. facilities in operates States. sterilization EO the and gamma
Sotera or and intend and Sotera Health verdict U.S. damage awards, the is a challenge Sterigenics the LLC science the to vigorously subsidiary company or believe We and Health do post-trial holding appropriate through all of the Company. the for justify we facts, not law, relief them motions appeals. of
that relief by for post-trial addresses the for both filing trial relief damages process and with On motion the post-trial motion October XX, a court. we the verdict awarded. began The
a to relief the trial. to post-trial court in asked for grant motion alternative or judgment enter the favor the in new First,
includes trial the the the and support important the of jury. of of numerous to errors court's rulings The admissibility insufficiency instructions to trial in and relief basis numerous about court's motions, verdict, evidence this in the in at for evidence errors the request the
Second, damages the grounds not the on motion supported asked the excessive for the trial the the was post-trial by court award and that compensatory to relief evidence. reduce
grounds requests was was motion for reduce or court the not not a that punitive evidence. vacate the the to that to and post-trial award supported punitive jury damages met the standard for award damages the Third, award threshold the of allowing the relief by jury's strict trial on
cause let argument alone in relief the no exposure I that and unbalanced motion court improperly EO to While this causation cancer. on suggesting, scientific Mrs. rulings unfair of Kamuda into do alleged presents our impeded particularly the otherwise that credible not studies on and can go the levels Various or for lack by by trial defense trial. will establishing, are there case, details, of our resulted the the post-trial
by by evidence been was were were misconduct. awards have the punitive the damages, alleged should of awarding punitive and high jury. at out for and the to presented and met sought damages proportion lawyers fueled argument double to that nearly plaintiffs The compensatory which and entirely the amount excessive were trial, significant the part in strict The damage not standard not
stay relief for any the the and of Mrs. appeals citations including post-trial for lawyers the motion motion The post-trial means to enforceability relief before and Kamuda subsequent that are expected Kamuda's are judgment, Sotera U.S., subsidiaries. the other our parent in was of associated company, the many the the and our use company's filed verdict. against with issues verdicts Sterigenics LLC, Health of Obviously, these attached
post-trial take potential up Mrs. representatives to Kamuda are and her have intend of differing could views. $X we courts. not serious issues to case million for this post-judgment from to appellate be our motions range $XXX.X plus loss these If the successful, The interest.
to appeals the be required has in bond that the after for pending Sotera and LLC believe on security to will the appeals. other post when appropriate rulings However, does relief probable all post-trial not motions Health and no appeals liability and a reserve recorded. If or thus Sterigenics plaintiff prove U.S. company is surety necessary, been
the totality be courts, high less per determined rules be the ultimately XXX% and appellate determine bond appropriate trial unless under more the of lower as to and application will governing typical the to just judgment, the of amount of the of as the or outcomes circumstances. atypical by courts The be a amount could
expect and to to working markets. other of navigate to do be or secure so, capital the security state we We the will but have to are present bond able the
expeditiously of we Regarding proceedings as the timelines possible. eager proceed are the post-trial first EO review for this to with case, as
the to However, degree with timelines. predict exact difficult any certainty it is of
and EO is months trial and before judge more currently underway to different require appeals resolve. to at mid-November. year jury at a and second times a in and now a County conclude take This Cook or Motions in different minimum can expected is
of the XXXX, The litigated. is and third individual These fourth the begin scheduled April trial only in is be each scheduled will January trials claims XXXX. in begin of which in case trial are plaintiff plaintiffs a to
the individual the that. previously that XXXX five courts the returned due schedules we These tried in Subject case treated at – in trials change, change that Illinois overall will to will management to be be begin not from scheduled trial by January expect at dates time-to-time. in time
a should similar. May tried court hearing, of The the details at parties have individual small of in jointly, Furthermore, recent in the XXXX. confer the whose are groups claims plaintiffs jointly indicated be starting instructed to plaintiffs late be identify been the claims could to because claims tried
become and the mid-November actions proceed, trials procedural latest remain in trials joint But know by development. about scheduled. when We whether will if are possible of even will not will individual will they more class this they be joint the virtue and actions
finally, earlier years. welcome in to & counsel. office executive today, grew respected executive Dimitrief, general And and was we litigator, in XX up Ellis Illinois seasoned a Chicago as highly Alex as litigator Alex Kirkland announced for LLP team and our the at
Alex litigator, left guidance has I experience, We worked with when to G.E. of and several legal Alex a important and respect mind, want K&E And input, the successful champion and regarding Alex's brilliant to to a join together welcome he justice. and cases. EO reinforce integrity points. I law
by to Sotera regard be claims. LLC of the respects the Sotera EO and system the But trial science U.S. the intend Health these first rights or to Sterigenics the respect, continue we cases. defend vigorously We outcome Health legal of the plaintiffs present and law. with facts, unjust their and the to against the unsupported to LLC
have commitment employees healthcare. so gives an It's consistent and employees our much outstanding legal, facilities XXXX We compliantly. our performance other to beyond. communities our our safely, and profound outlook regulatory, our responsibly, we plays company, customers, with for conduct and for our many obligations, indispensable over respect optimism operate years and in company and our operate role Our the operations driven mission, me Health's over so it that which Sotera in and our our
open call Q&A. operator, point, At this for Denise, the let's
