that Defendants actually did engage in similar conduct. 7 . To the extent Plaintiff is challenging the statistical methodology used by Defendants, that issue is addressed above. In addition, to the extent Plaintiff suggests that parties conducting clinical trials necessarily are required to release all the detailed data or break that data down by categories that may plausibly be of interest to some investors, Plaintiff is incorrect. Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 do not categorically prohibit statements that are incomplete or that report cumulative figures instead of detailed breakdowns of the underlying data or subcategories of data. Brody v. Transitional Hosps. Corp., 280 F.3d 997, 1006, 1006 n. 8 (9th Cir.2002); see also In re Adolor Corp. Securities Litigation, 616 F.Supp.2d at 569 (<HOLDING>). 8 . Although the district court held that
holding that even if defendants knew that the company had inventory problems  that fact standing alone does not show that defendants knew that the statements in their prospectus or other representations were materially false or misleading at the time the material statements were made holding that company was not required to provide data or analysis on subgroups of patients in clinical trial even if subgroup information was material and the company had made public statements about topline results holding that plaintiffs failure to mention vice president of thirdparty company in initial disclosures was harmless because plaintiffs mentioned president of company and defendants conducted no discovery of company holding that where company made statements constituting inability to pay orally at bargaining sessions company had duty to show its books to the union holding in context of control person analysis that because defendant founded the company and was its largest shareholder he may be able to influence the company