at *96 (3d Cir. 2006). Before such a dismissal occurs, however, a district court must consider six factors outlined in Poulis v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., For internal use only SDNY_GM_00057202 CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.CON(F IDENTIAL DB-SDNY-0020026 EFTA_00I 67770 EFTA01295867 Page 8

lly, F.T.C. supra, at fn.4, citing United States v. Premises Located at Route 13 946 F.2d 749, 756 (11th Cir.1991) (citing Pervis v. State Farm and Cas. Co., 901 F.2d 944, 948 (11th Cir.1990)). See also S.E.C. v. Keith Group of Companies, Inc. 1998 WL 1670405 (S.D. Fla. 1998)("When a party is a defendan

alternative, out-of court resolution of their dispute. The case that prompted the Court's inquiry during the status conference, State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Hood, 266 F.R.D. 135 (S.D. Miss. 2010) ("State Farm I"), is consistent with these Rules and cases. In State Farm 1, members of the press sought t

at *96 (3d Cir. 2006). Before such a dismissal occurs, however, a district court must consider six factors outlined in Poulis v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., For internal use only CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R. CRIM. P. 6(e) DB-SDNY-0053285 CONFIDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00199469 EFTA01363327