Free Objections - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-00968—Gl\/IS Document 40 Filed O3/18/2005 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
ALLERGAN, INC., and ALLERGAN )
SALES, LLC., )
>
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
) . . . _
ALCON INC., ALCON ) C1v1l Action N0. 04-968-GMS
LABORATORIES, INC., and ALCON )
RESEARCH, LTD., )
)
Defendants. )
>
I
ALCON’S OBJECTIONS TO ALLERGAN’S FIRST NOTICE OF
DEPOSITION PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 30gB)g6)
Defendants, Alcon Inc., Alcon Laboratories, Inc. and Alcon Research Ltd. (collectively
"Alcon"), object to the Topics of Examination set forth in the First Notice of Deposition to
Defendants Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) served by plaintiffs, Allergan, Inc. and Allergan
Sales, LLC. (collectively "Allergan”), as follows:
Topic No. 7: The advantages of Alcon’s proposed brimonidine product over Alcon’s
currently available .2% brimonidine product.
Objection: Alcon objects to this topic because it seeks infonnation that is irrelevant
to any issue in this action and is not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
WP3:lO9540l.l 63534.1001

Case 1:04-cv-OO968—Gl\/IS Document 40 Filed O3/18/2005 Page 2 of 4
Topic No. 8; United States Patent Nos. 6,641,834 and 6,673,337.
Objection: Alcon objects to this topic because it is vague and ambiguous in that it
does not describe with reasonable particularity the subjects that Allergan seeks to discover.
Alcon further objects to any examination on this topic to the extent that such examination seeks
to elicit information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product.
Topic No. 10: All testing of Allergarfs ALPHAGAN®P.
Objection: Alcon objects to this topic because it seeks information that is irrelevant to
any issue in this action and is not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Topic No. 11: The differences between A1con’s proposed brirnonidine product and
A11ergan’s ALPHAGAN®P.
Objection: Alcon objects to this topic because it seeks information that is irrelevant to
any issue in this action and is not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Alcon maintains its right to object to specific questions posed by Allergan on the other
topics listed in the Rule 30(b)(6) Notice.
Dated: March 18, 2005 4%; N
Josy W. gersoil (No. 1088)
Young onaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP
The Brandywine Building
1000 West Street, 17m Floor
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Tel: (302) 571-6600
Fax: (203) 571-1253
[email protected]
Attorneys for Defendants
Alcon, Inc., Alcon Laboratories, Inc.,
and Alcon Research, Ltd.
-2-
WP3:l095401.1 63534.1001

Case 1:04-cv-OO968—G|\/IS Document 40 Filed O3/18/2005 Page 3 of 4
Of Counsel:
Daniel J. Thomasch
Brian D. Coggio
M. Veronica Mullally
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
666 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10103
Tel: (212) 506-5000
Fax (212) 506-5151
-3-
WP3:l09540l.l 63534_10()]

Case 1:04-cv-00968—G|\/IS Document 40 Filed 03/18/2005 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, J osy W. Ingersoll, Esquire hereby certify that on March 18, 2005, I caused to be
electronically tiled a true and correct copy of the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court
using CM/ECF, which will send notification that such tiling is available for viewing and
downloading to the following counsel of record:
William J. Marsden, Jr., Esquire
Fish & Richardson, P.A.
919 N. Market Street, Suite 1100
Wilmington, DE 19801
I further certify that on March 18, 2005, 1 caused a copy of the foregoing document to be
served by hand delivery on the above-listed counsel of record and on the following non-
registered participants in the manner indicated:
BY E-MAIL
Jonathan E. Singer, Esquire
Fish & Richardson, P.A.
3300 Dain Rauscher Plaza
60 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
g)//4 .2
Jdsy W}? gersoll( o. 1088)
The Bra dywine Building
1000 West Street, 17th Floor
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
(302) 571-6600
[email protected]
Attorneys for Defendants
WP3:l092430.l 63534.1001