Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF Document 61 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 1 of 2
MoRR1s, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
1201 NORTH MARKET STREET
P.O. Box 1347
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19899-1347
302 658 9200
JMB. Bmw FBLB 302 658 3989 FAX
202 251 9291
302 425 3012 FAX
[email protected] Jung 6,
The Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr. VIA ELECTRONIC FILING
United States District Court
for the District of Delaware
844 North King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Reliant Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.
C.A. No. 06-774-JJF
Dear Judge Farnan:
We represent Plaintiff Reliant Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Reliant") in this matter,
and write in response to Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.’s (“Par") May 31, 2007 letter regarding
Reliant’s Motion For Disqualitication of Frommer Lawrence & Haug LLP ("FLH").
Par’s May 31, 2007 letter violates Paragraph 8(a) of the March 28, 2007
Scheduling Order ("[t]he Court will not consider applications and requests submitted by letter or
in a form other than a motion"). If, however, the Court is going to consider Par’s letter, Reliant
respectliilly requests that the Court also consider this response.
Par’s request that the Court strike supposed "new matter" in Reliant’s reply brief
is unwarranted. In its opening brief, Reliant noted that it had e—mail correspondence with FLH
that supported the statements made in Reliant’s brief and in the supporting declaration of its
former in-house counsel, Michael Lerner. Reliant offered to provide these e-mails to the Court
for in camera inspection. Reliant also offered to provide them to its former counsel FLH on a
. non-waiver, "attorneys eyes’ or1ly" basis. FLH did not request (and still has not requested) these
e-mails. Reliant’s offers still stand.
1 Reliant offered to provide FLH, a party to the attomey-client privilege, a copy of the
supporting e-mails, but did not extend that offer to FLH’s counsel, Mr. Harris. Since Mr.
Harris was not a party to the attorney-client privilege between FLH and Reliant, a third party
could argue that such disclosure by Reliant constitutes a waiver of Reliant’s privilege.

Case 1 :06-cv-00774-JJF Document 61 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 2 of 2
0 The Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.
June 6, 2007
Page 2
Par’s Opposition brief and the declarations submitted therewith by ten FLH
attomeys and agents contained a great deal of unsupported and inaccurate information. Thus,
with its Reply Brief, Reliant submitted certain e-mails to demonstrate that Par’s declarations
were unsupported and inaccurate. Reliant’s e-mails demonstrate that FLH’s current
representation of Par is substantially related to its former representation of Reliant and that
current F LH partners have knowledge of Reliant’s confidences shared during that former
representation. There is no basis for Par’s request to strike e-mails submitted to correct
inaccuracies in Par’s brief and F LH’s declarations.
Par’s request to submit a surreply should also be denied. The Court has already
stated that it will decide Reliant’s motion on the papers submitted to the Court. Par had a full
and fair opportunity to respond to Reliant’s motion in its Opposition brief. Any inequity alleged
by Par is due to FLH’s decision to ignore the clear evidence that establishes the substantial
relationship between FLH’s subsequent representations of Reliant and Par and demonstrates that
Reliant’s attomey-client confidences still exist at FLH.
Respectfully,
ck B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
JBB/dlb
cc: Clerk of Court (Via Hand Delivery)
Josy W. Ingersoll, Esquire (Via Hand Delivery)
Karen L. Pascale, Esquire (Via Hand Delivery)
Edgar H. Haug, Esquire (Via Electronic Mail)
Gerald J. Flattmann, Esquire (Via Electronic Mail)
851074.1