Free Opening Brief in Support - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

PURDUE PHARMA PRODUCTS L.P., : NAPP PHARMACEUTICAL GROUP LTD., : BIOVAIL LABORATORIES INTERNATIONAL : SRL, and ORTHO-MCNEIL, INC. : : Plaintiffs, : : v. : : PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC. and PAR : PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC. : : Defendants. :

CASE NUMBER: 07-255-JJF

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

SEITZ, VAN OGTROP & GREEN, P.A. JAMES S. GREEN, SR., ESQ. (DE0481) [email protected] 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500 P. O. Box 68 Wilmington, DE 19899 (302) 888-0600 Attorneys for Grünenthal, USA, Inc. Of Counsel: Dale H. Hoscheit Joseph M. Skerpon Banner & Witcoff, Ltd. 1100 13th Street, N.W. Suite 1200 Washington, D.C. 20005-4051 (202) 824-3000
65213 v1

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 2 of 6

I.

INTRODUCTION This Memorandum is in support of the Motion to Quash the subpoena for the deposition

of Grünenthal USA, Inc. issued from this court and served May 19, 2008 (Exhibit 1)1. For the reasons identified below this subpoena imposes an undue burden on Grünenthal USA, Inc. The subpoena for the deposition of Grünenthal USA (USA) seeks testimony regarding subjects that have no relevance to any disputed issues in this lawsuit. Instead this subpoena is part of an on-going effort by Par Pharmaceuticals to circumvent a ruling by the Southern District of New York in a misguided attempt to obtain documents of Grünenthal GmbH (GmbH) through its U.S. subsidiary, Grünenthal USA (USA). Not willing to abide a ruling by this court on Par's Motion for Issuance of Letters Rogatory, Par served a subpoena on USA for production of documents by USA and GmbH from the New York District Court. (New York Subpoena)(Exhibit 2) (USA is a Delaware corporation, Par could have filed the earlier subpoena in this court but chose not to.) USA answered the subpoena stating that it has none of the

requested documents and that it did not have custody or control of the requested GmbH documents. (Exhibit 3) Indeed, GmbH has refused to produce the requested documents. (Exhibit 4) On April 10, 2008, after the Motion for Issuance of Letters Rogatory was fully briefed before this Court, Par moved in the New York District Court to compel the production of essentially the same documents in the possession or control of GmbH, (Exhibit 5 and Exhibit 2). The District Court, Judge Batts, upon notice that the same matter was the subject of a Letters Rogatory Motion before this court, ruled on May 12 that it was appropriate to defer to the Judge permanently assigned to the case.

1 References are to Exhibits attached to the Declaration of Dale H. Hoscheit dated May 28, 2008.
65213 v1

2

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 3 of 6

"It is appropriate for this Court to defer to the Judge permanently assigned to this case where the subpoena before this Court is merely duplicative of another effort, before the primary Court, to obtain the same documents". (Exhibit 6) Par now seeks testimony of USA as part of its continuing efforts to argue that it is entitled to obtain GmbH documents under the New York subpoena served on USA. That is the only

purpose for the deposition of USA that Par seeks to compel by subpoena, since USA has no information regarding any disputed issues in the lawsuit. Neither GmbH nor USA is involved in the subject cause of action, neither will obtain any financial benefit from the litigation, and neither manufactures or markets any controlled released tramadol products in the US. Indeed, USA does not manufacture, market or sell any product. Neither the deposition that Par seeks, nor the documents Par ultimately hopes to obtain have any connection to USA's business of supporting clinical trials none of which relate to tramadol. Subjecting USA to deposition so that Par can attempt to circumvent the New York Court's ruling on Par's subpoena for documents and this Court's ruling on Par's Motion for Issuance of Letters Rogatory imposes an undue burden on USA and should not be permitted. Par's subpoena should be quashed. II. BACKGROUND A. Grünenthal USA and Grünenthal GmbH It is undisputed that, USA was incorporated in 2001 (Exhibit 7) and has only fourteen (14) employees. As shown in the Dun & Bradstreet Report filed and relied on by Par in New York, (Exhibit 8), and as confirmed by the Passerelli Declaration (Exhibit 9), USA's business is limited to operational support for U.S. clinical trials and U.S. regulatory expertise when needed. None of those activities involve tramadol. It does not manufacture or service any product; it
65213 v1

3

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 4 of 6

does not market any product; and it does not sell any product. The activities of USA do not require or involve access to GmbH internal documents in the ordinary course of business, much less internal GmbH documents from a time period many years before USA was even incorporated. USA has its own board of directors. Ms. JoAnn Passerelli, an employee of USA only, is the Senior Operational Officer of USA. The current president of USA is Dr. Eric-Paul Paques. Exhibit 7 and 9) Dr. Paques is the only member of USA's three-member board, who is also on the four-member executive board of GmbH. (Exhibit 10) Dr. Paques is not a member of the family that owns GmbH and is only one of four GmbH board members. USA's business is limited to activities completely unrelated to tramadol or to the type of documents requested. USA has no need for the documents requested and does not have the legal or practical right to obtain those documents particularly when the requested documents are from a time period years before USA even existed. B. Subpoena Subject Matter The subpoena requests testimony related to the structure and operation of USA. Those are matters that do not involve any issue of the present litigation. It is being pursued by Par in its continuing effort to obtain the GmbH documents requested in its New York subpoena, even though those same documents are also being requested in its Motion for Letters Rogatory in this court. C. The New York Subpoena The New York subpoena (Exhibit 2) involves document requests that parallel the requests of Par's Motion for Letters Rogatory before this court. (Compare Exhibit 2 with Exhibit 5). The primary thrust of the document requests is directed to documents in the early and mid 1990's,
65213 v1

4

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 5 of 6

long before USA even existed, and as demonstrated in the Memorandum in Opposition to the New York Motion, are neither relevant nor likely to lead to relevant documents. III. ARGUMENT Two prior decisions of this very court, Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. v. United States, 1997 WL 873550 (D.Del 1997), and Power Integrations, Inc., v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., 233 F.R.D. 143 (D.Del. 2005), argue strongly in support of this Motion to Quash. Each involved unsuccessful attempts to reach documents of a parent through its

subsidiary. Here, as in Playboy and in Power Integration, there is no basis to assert that USA can access the requested documents in the normal course of business. USA's mission is to follow clinical trials (none of which involve tramadol) and the requested documents primarily relate to a time period years before USA existed. Merely to state these facts demonstrates the lack of right or practical ability to obtain the requested documents. Still other relevant factors for determining "control" identified in Playboy include the non-party's connection to the transaction at issue, and whether the non-party will receive benefit of a favorable litigation outcome. Here, neither USA nor GmbH market any slow-release tramadol product in the US and neither will receive a benefit from a favorable litigation outcome. Par's subpoena for testimony represents an effort by Par to resurrect its unsuccessful attempt to secure documents from USA through the New York subpoena. This Court should not allow USA to be subjected to the burden of appearing for a deposition when the facts for denying the underlying document requests are so clear.

65213 v1

5

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 6 of 6

IV.

CONCLUSION The subpoena should be quashed.

Respectfully Submitted, SEITZ, VAN OGTROP & GREEN, P.A. /s/ James S. Green, Sr. JAMES S. GREEN, SR., ESQ. (DE0481) [email protected] 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500 P. O. Box 68 Wilmington, DE 19899 (302) 888-0600 Attorneys for Grünenthal, USA, Inc. Dated: May 29, 2008 Of Counsel: Dale H. Hoscheit Joseph M. Skerpon Banner & Witcoff, Ltd. 1100 13th Street, N.W. Suite 1200 Washington, D.C. 20005-4051 (202) 824-3000

65213 v1

6

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-2

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-2

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 2 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-3

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 1 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-3

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 2 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-3

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 3 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-3

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 4 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-3

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 5 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-3

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 6 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-3

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 7 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-3

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 8 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-3

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 9 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-3

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 10 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-3

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 11 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-3

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 12 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-3

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 13 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-3

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 14 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-3

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 15 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-3

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 16 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-3

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 17 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-3

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 18 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-3

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 19 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-3

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 20 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-3

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 21 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-3

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 22 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-3

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 23 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-3

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 24 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-3

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 25 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-3

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 26 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-3

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 27 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-3

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 28 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-3

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 29 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-3

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 30 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-3

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 31 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-3

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 32 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-3

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 33 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-3

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 34 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-3

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 35 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-3

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 36 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-3

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 37 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-3

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 38 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-3

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 39 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-3

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 40 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-3

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 41 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-3

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 42 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-3

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 43 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-3

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 44 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-3

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 45 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-3

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 46 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-3

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 47 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00255-JJF

Document 144-4

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 1 of 1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, James S. Green, Esquire, hereby certify that on the 29th day of May, 2008, I served the following counsel: Via CM/ECF: CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP Mary W. Bourke (#2356) The Nemours Building 1007 N. Orange Street Wilmington, DE 19899 Attorneys for Plaintiff Ortho-McNeil, Inc. RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER P.A. Frederick L. Cottrell, III (#2555) Steven J. Fineman (#4025) One Rodney Square Wilmington, DE 19899 Attorneys for Defendant Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. and or the Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. THE BAYARD FIRM Rickard D. Kirk (#922) 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 900 Wilmington, DE 19899-5130 Attorneys for Plaintiff Biovail Laboratories International, SRL

MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT, & TUNNELL LLP Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1041) Rodger D. Smith II (#3778) 1201 N. Market Street Wilmington, DE 19899-1347 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Purdue Pharma Products L.P. And Napp Pharmaceutical Group Ltd.

Via Federal Express: Robert E. Colletti FROMMER LAURENCE & HAUG LLP 745 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10151 Attorneys for Defendants Par Pharmaceuticals Inc Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc

/s/ James S. Green, Sr. _________________________________ James S. Green, Sr. (DE0481) [email protected]

63565 v1