Task: Text Completion
Input (English): argues that even had she exercised reasonable diligence to discover the factual bases of her claims during the applicable limitations periods, she would not have discovered any information concerning Zoloft’s alleged ineffectiveness because no information criticizing Zoloft’s efficacy existed to which a reasonably diligent consumer would have been exposed. However, the district court took judicial notice of an extensive record of documents—all publicly available during the relevant limitations periods—which discussed Pfizer’s unpublished clinical trials and the allegation that Zoloft was no more effective than a placebo. The district court did not-err in taking judicial notice of these documents. See Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010) (<HOLDING>); Seven Arts Filmed Entm’t Ltd. v. Content 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a court may take judicial notice of publications to establish what was in the public realm at the time (B) recognizing that a court may take judicial notice of court filings and other matters of public record (C) recognizing that a court may rely on matters of which a court may take judicial notice (D) recognizing that the court may take judicial notice of its own docket (E) recognizing that a court may take judicial notice of a document filed in another court  to establish the fact of such litigation and related filings
Output (English): (A)