Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 1 of 9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE RELIANT PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Plaintiff, v. PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
C.A. No. 06-774 (JJF)
PLAINTIFF RELIANT PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.'S OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING PAR'S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION TO RELIANT PURSUANT TO RULE 30(b)(6)
MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014) Maryellen Noreika (#3208) 1201 North Market Street P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899-1347 (302) 658-9200 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff OF COUNSEL: John M. Desmarais Gerald J. Flattmann, Jr. Christine Willgoos KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Citigroup Center 153 E. 53rd Street New York, NY 10022 (212) 446-4800 February 7, 2008
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 2 of 9 i.
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS ......................................................................1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ..............................................................................................1 STATEMENT OF THE FACTS .....................................................................................................2 ARGUMENT...................................................................................................................................2 CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................4
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 3 of 9 ii.
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Axiohm IPS, Inc. v. Epson Am., Inc., C.A. No. 00-420-SLR (D. Del. Mar. 28, 2001) .................................................................. 3 In re Indep. Service Org. Antitrust Litig., 168 F.R.D. 651 (D. Kan. 1996)........................................................................................... 4 McKesson Info. Solutions LLC v. The TriZetto Group, Inc., C.A. No. 04-1258-SLR (D. Del. Aug. 2, 2005).............................................................. 3, 4 Tiegel Manu Co. v. Globe Union, Inc., C.A. No. 84-483 (D. Del. Oct. 5, 1984).......................................................................... 3, 4 Statutes Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6)............................................................................................................... 1, 2 Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(c) .................................................................................................................. 2
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 4 of 9 1.
NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS On December 19, 2006 Reliant Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Reliant") filed this action for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,681,588 ("the `588 patent") against Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. ("Par"), based on Par's filing of ANDA 78-540, which seeks to market generic versions of Reliant's drug Rythmol® SR. D.I. 1. Par answered Reliant's Complaint on February 9, 2007. D.I. 11. This action is currently in discovery. The parties have exchanged document requests and interrogatories, and have served their respective responses. To date, Reliant has produced over 92,000 pages of documents. The parties have scheduled several fact depositions, but have not yet taken any depositions. Pursuant to the Court's Rule 16 Scheduling Order, fact discovery is to be completed by March 7, 2008.1 D.I. 27. On December 21, 2007 Par served Reliant with a Notice Of Deposition of Reliant Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) ("Par's 30(b)(6) Notice"). This is Reliant's Opening Brief in support of its motion seeking a protective order regarding certain topics contained in Par's 30(b)(6) Notice. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT Par has requested that Reliant identify and present a witness for deposition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) to testify concerning a number of Reliant's principal contentions in this suit. Contention depositions, however, are not permitted in this district. Moreover, Par has already sought -- and obtained -- this same discovery through contention interrogatories.
1
The parties have agreed that it is unlikely that fact discovery will be completed by March 7, 2008, and are currently working towards an agreement to extend the fact discovery period.
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 5 of 9 2.
The contention discovery sought by Par is overbroad, inefficient and unreasonable. Accordingly, Reliant respectfully requests that this Court enter a Protective Order denying Par testimony pursuant to its Rule 30(b)(6) Notice regarding Topics 1, 4, 9, 10, 15 and 16 of Par's 30(b)(6) Notice. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS On December 21, 2007 Par served a deposition notice pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) on Reliant. Several of the topics listed in the notice sought testimony on Reliant's contentions in this litigation. For example, the notice sought Reliant's contentions concerning infringement (Topics 1, 9), exceptional case (Topic 4), and validity (Topics 9, 10, 15, 16). See Ex. 1. Reliant served its Objections and Responses to Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.'s Notice of Deposition Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) on January 15, 2008. In these objections, Reliant noted the impropriety of Par's Topics 1, 4, 9, 10, 15 and 16, and stated that it would not produce a witness for these topics.2 See Ex. 2. Par continues to seek the improper discovery requested in its 30(b)(6) Notice. ARGUMENT Under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(c). 2 Reliant also stated that it would not produce a witness regarding Topic 8 which sought, inter alia, information concerning Reliant's due diligence in acquiring Rythmol® SR and the `588 patent -- the same subject matter on which Par's counsel, Frommer Lawrence & Haug, had previously advised Reliant. See D.I. 138, 163. Par has since withdrawn Topic 8 without prejudice to redraft it, and Reliant reserves all rights to object to the redrafted topic. Similarly, Reliant also initially stated that it would not produce a witness to testify regarding Topics 12 and 14, of which Reliant has no corporate knowledge. At Par's request, however, Reliant will produce a witness to testify regarding these Topics, so that Par may explore the extent (or lack thereof) of Reliant's knowledge of the information sought in those topics.
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 6 of 9 3.
In this Court, requests for contentions through a deposition is not allowed. Ex. 3, Axiohm IPS, Inc. v. Epson Am., Inc., C.A. No. 00-420-SLR, at 4 (D. Del. Mar. 28, 2001) ("[W]e don't do contention depositions in this district"). Instead, the proper mechanism through which to investigate a party's contentions is through contention interrogatories. As Judge Stapleton noted: It has been the consistent position of this Court that a lay person shouldn't be required to formulate a party's contention in response to deposition questioning and that not even a lawyer should not be required to formulate trial strategy and contentions in immediate response to questions on deposition. And it has accordingly been the consistent practice to require that contention discovery, which is clearly permissible and very constructive in narrowing the issues, but to confine it to interrogatories to a party, period. Ex. 4, Tiegel Manu Co. v. Globe Union, Inc., C.A. No. 84-483, at 14 (D. Del. Oct. 5, 1984). Accord Ex. 5, McKesson Info. Solutions LLC v. The TriZetto Group, Inc., C.A. No. 04-1258SLR, at 21 (D. Del. Aug. 2, 2005) ("[I]f you ask for depositions concerning the basis for a defense, that [should be] a contention interrogatory"). Par's Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice contains six topics that go to the heart of Reliant's contentions in this suit: that its `588 patent is willfully infringed by Par's generic Rythmol® and that the `588 patent is valid and enforceable. See Ex. 1 at Topics 1, 4, 9, 10, 15 and 16. At least four of these topics specifically request "[t]he factual bases for Reliant's contention or belief."3 See id. at Topics 1, 4, 9, and 10. The remaining two topics call for a Reliant witness to testify concerning "[t]he technical field of art" and "[t]he level of ordinary skill in the art" "to which the `588 patent pertains." See id. at Topics 15 and 16. This subject 3 A Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice that seeks all of the "facts" supporting a party's claim targets contentions. "[I]nserting of the word `facts' doesn't make [a deposition topic] less of an effort to get at what is essentially the legal position of the party . . . ." Pharmacia & Upjohn Co, at 36.
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 7 of 9 4.
matter is directly targeted to Reliant's contention that the `588 patent is valid (i.e. not obvious or anticipated).4 Requiring Reliant to produce a witness to testify regarding its contentions is inefficient and unreasonable and would require Reliant's designated witness "to know every fact pertaining to every contention." See Ex. 6, Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. v. Sicor, Inc., C.A. No. 04833, at 37 (D. Del. Oct. 21, 2005) (transcript of hearing before Judge Jordan). See also In re Indep. Service Org. Antitrust Litig., 168 F.R.D. 651, 654 (D. Kan. 1996). Moreover, Par has already obtained Reliant's contentions regarding these matters through Reliant's responses to Par's interrogatories. See Ex. 7 at Interrogatory Nos. 3, 6-7. That is the only proper mechanism by which Par may investigate these contentions. Tiegel Manu Co., at 14. Accord McKesson Info. Solutions LLC, at 21. Accordingly, Par's Rule 30(b)(6) deposition topics are improper. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Reliant requests the Court grant its motion for a protective order and preclude Par from seeking Reliant's testimony concerning Topics 1, 4, 9, 10, 15 and 16 of Par's 30(b)(6) Notice.
4
This is also a subject matter that is a more suitable for expert testimony than for a fact witness.
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 8 of 9 5.
MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
/s/ Maryellen Noreika
Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014) Maryellen Noreika (#3208) 1201 North Market Street P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899-1347 (302) 658-9200 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff
OF COUNSEL: John M. Desmarais Gerald J. Flattmann, Jr. Christine Willgoos KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Citigroup Center 153 E. 53rd Street New York, NY 10022 (212) 446-4800 February 7, 2008
1488325
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 9 of 9
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on February 7, 2008 I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will send notification of such filing to: Josy W. Ingersoll, Esquire YOUNG, CONAWAY, STARGATT & TAYLOR I further certify that I caused to be served copies of the foregoing document on February 7, 2008 upon the following in the manner indicated: Josy W. Ingersoll, Esquire YOUNG, CONAWAY, STARGATT & TAYLOR The Brandywine Building 1000 West Street, 17th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 John G. Taylor, Esquire James K. Stronski, Esquire FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG LLP 745 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10151 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
/s/ Maryellen Noreika
Maryellen Noreika (#3208)
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 1 of 55
Exhibit 1
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 2 of 55
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 3 of 55
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 4 of 55
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 5 of 55
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 6 of 55
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 7 of 55
Exhibit 2
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 8 of 55
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 9 of 55
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 10 of 55
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 11 of 55
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 12 of 55
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 13 of 55
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 14 of 55
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 15 of 55
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 16 of 55
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 17 of 55
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 18 of 55
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 19 of 55
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 20 of 55
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 21 of 55
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 22 of 55
Exhibit 3
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 23 of 55
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 24 of 55
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 25 of 55
Exhibit 4
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 26 of 55
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 27 of 55
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 28 of 55
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 29 of 55
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 30 of 55
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 31 of 55
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 32 of 55
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 33 of 55
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 34 of 55
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 35 of 55
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 36 of 55
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 37 of 55
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 38 of 55
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 39 of 55
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 40 of 55
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 41 of 55
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 42 of 55
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 43 of 55
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 44 of 55
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 45 of 55
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 46 of 55
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 47 of 55
Exhibit 5
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 48 of 55
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 49 of 55
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 50 of 55
Exhibit 6
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 51 of 55
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 52 of 55
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 53 of 55
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 54 of 55
Exhibit 7
Case 1:06-cv-00774-JJF
Document 173-2
Filed 02/07/2008
Page 55 of 55
CONFIDENTIAL EXHIBIT
Free Opening Brief in Support - District Court of Delaware - Delaware
| File Size: | 2,390.0 kB |
| Pages: | 64 |
| Date: | September 8, 2008 |
| File Format: | |
| State: | Delaware |
| Category: | District Court of Delaware |
| Author: | unknown |
| Word Count: | 2,390 Words, 15,818 Characters |
| Page Size: | Letter (8 1/2" x 11") |
| URL |
https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/37509/173.pdf |
| Download Opening Brief in Support - District Court of Delaware ( 2,390.0 kB) |
Preview Opening Brief in Support - District Court of Delaware
Popular Searches
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms