Free Objections - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01251-GMS

Document 19

Filed 03/25/2005

Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Plaintiff, Counterdefendant, v. BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC, Defendant, Counterclaimant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civil Action No. 04-1251 (GMS)

ABBOTT LABORATORIES' RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT BAYER HEALTHCARE'S FIRST NOTICE OF DEPOSITION PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 30(b)(6) Pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Abbott Laboratories ("Abbott") hereby submits these responses and objections to Defendant Bayer Healthcare LLC's ("Bayer") First Rule 30(b)(6) Notice of Deposition ("Notice") as follows: GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. Abbott objects to the Notice to the extent it seeks disclosure of

information protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, any privilege applicable to settlement communications, or any other applicable privilege. Abbott intends to and does claim privilege with respect to all such information. Any inadvertent production of privileged information does not constitute a waiver of any of these privileges.

1

Case 1:04-cv-01251-GMS

Document 19

Filed 03/25/2005

Page 2 of 5

2.

Abbott objects to the Notice to the extent it seeks disclosure of

information beyond the scope of the discovery obligations imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules of this Court. 3. Abbott objects to the Notice to the extent it seeks disclosure of

confidential information containing trade secret or other confidential information. To the extent Abbott produces such information, it will do so subject to the protective order entered in this case. 4. Abbott objects to Bayer's Definitions as vague, ambiguous, overly broad

and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 5. Each of the above general objections is incorporated by reference as if

fully set forth in Plaintiff's objections and responses below. SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES 1. Abbott objects to the subject matter set forth in paragraph 1 on the ground

that it calls for attorney client privileged information and/or attorney work product. Abbott also objects to producing a witness to testify on this subject matter because it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly, Abbott will not produce a witness to address this subject matter. 2. Abbott objects to the subject matter set forth in paragraph 2 on the ground

that it calls for attorney client privileged information and/or attorney work product. Abbott also objects to producing a witness to testify on this subject matter because it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly, Abbott will not produce a witness to address this subject matter.

2

Case 1:04-cv-01251-GMS

Document 19

Filed 03/25/2005

Page 3 of 5

3.

Abbott objects to the subject matter set forth in paragraph 3 on the ground

that it calls for attorney client privileged information and/or attorney work product. Abbott also objects to producing a witness to testify on this subject matter because it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly, Abbott will not produce a witness to address this subject matter. 4. Abbott objects to the subject matter set forth in paragraph 4 on the ground

that it calls for attorney client privileged information and/or attorney work product. Abbott also objects to producing a witness to testify on this subject matter because it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Abbott further objects to the subject matter set forth in paragraph 4 on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and unduly burdensome,. Accordingly, Abbott will not produce a witness to address this subject matter. 5. Abbott objects to the subject matter set forth in paragraph 5 on the ground

that it calls for attorney client privileged information and/or attorney work product. Abbott also objects to producing a witness to testify on this subject matter because it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly, Abbott will not produce a witness to address this subject matter. 6. Abbott objects to the subject matter set forth in paragraph 6 on the ground

that it calls for attorney client privileged information and/or attorney work product. Abbott also objects to producing a witness to testify on this subject matter because it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly, Abbott will not produce a witness to address this subject matter. 7. Abbott objects to the subject matter set forth in paragraph 7 on the ground

that it calls for attorney client privileged information and/or attorney work product. Abbott also

3

Case 1:04-cv-01251-GMS

Document 19

Filed 03/25/2005

Page 4 of 5

objects to producing a witness to testify on this subject matter because it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly, Abbott will not produce a witness to address this subject matter. 8. Abbott objects to the subject matter set forth in paragraph 8 on the ground

that it calls for attorney client privileged information and/or attorney work product. Abbott also objects to producing a witness to testify on this subject matter because it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly, Abbott will not produce a witness to address this subject matter. MORRIS NICHOLS ARSHT & TUNNELL

/s/ James W. Parrett, Jr. Mary B. Graham, #2256 James W. Parrett, Jr. #4292 1201 North Market Street P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, Delaware 19899 (302) 658-9200 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Abbott Laboratories

OF COUNSEL: MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP Jeffrey L. Weinberger Garth T. Vincent Andrea Weiss Jeffries 355 South Grand Avenue 35th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 (213) 683-9100 March 25, 2005

4

Case 1:04-cv-01251-GMS

Document 19

Filed 03/25/2005

Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on March 25, 2005, I caused the foregoing to be electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF which will send electronic notification of such filing to the following: BY HAND: James D. Heisman, Esq. Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP 1220 Market Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Additionally, I hereby certify that true and correct copies of the foregoing were caused to be served on March 25, 2005 upon the following individuals in the manner indicated: BY HAND James D. Heisman, Esq. Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP 1220 Market Street Wilmington, DE 19801 BY FACSIMILE Dale M. Heist, Esq. Woodcock Washburn LLP One Liberty Place, 46th Floor 17th and Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103

/s/ James W. Parrett, Jr. James W. Parrett, Jr. (#4292)

5