SKADDEN, AHPS. SLATE, MEAGHER 5} FLOM |.|.F’
ONE R0I:>NEY SOUARE I
R0. Box 636 ,,0;,,,,
wII.rvIIr~IeT0IxI. DELAWARE Ieeee-oe;-ze §’§L°§Z°§’§L
— LOS ANGELES
rEI.; (noe) ee I-sooo N°;§NWjC'fFfK
mor DIAL FAX: (sos) 65 I-zoo I »=At¤ me
(302;,,5;,jQ 54 www.S1
M BA Eiiii) D E N . CO M &PRRAUNSKiiJLR5T
HONG KONG
October 12, 2005 ;§;§§Q‘,
5.~'Z."£$£$RE
TOKYO
BY ELECTRONIC FILING â€Â§iiE?.TJl°
The Honorable Sue L. Robinson
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
844 North King Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
RE: McKesson Information Solutions, LLC v. The T riZetto Group, Inc.,
C.A. No. 04-1258-SLR
Dear Chief Judge Robinson:
We write to correct certain misstatements in TI‘iZetto’s October 7, 2005
letter regarding McKesson’s request for relief in connection with certain of its Rule
30(b)(6) topics objected to by TriZetto. (D.I. 118). TriZetto has not in fact produced all of
the documents from which McKesson can obtain the customer information requested in
our October 4 letter. (D.I. 1l2). TriZetto answered McKesson's interrogatory directed at
this information by referencing documents in it production. TriZetto's production,
however, contained documents for fewer than half of its customers. When we requested
the relevant documents for the remaining customers, TriZetto stated that they did not exist.
As a result, Mcliesson was forced to seek this information through a Rule 30(b)(6)
deposition, only to have TriZetto refuse to produce a witness able to provide the .
information missing from TriZetto's production and interrogatory response. Under these
circumstances, McKesson's request for a complete answer to its interrogatory, as requested
in our October 4 letter, in lieu of a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition is appropriate. See, e. g.,
United States v. Moss. Indust. Fin. Agency, 162 F.R.D. 410, 412 (D. Mass. 1995).
Respectfully submitted,
Michael A. Barlow (#3928)
cc: Jeffrey T. Thomas, Esq. (by e—mail)
Jack B. Blumenfeld, Esq. (by e-filing)