Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv—00833-KAJ Document 178 Filed 12/08/2005 Page 1 of 2
ASHEY S. GEDDES
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW TELEPHGNE
222 DELAWARE AVENUE °°2`°°`°`°°°°
FACSIMILE
P- O- BOX ||5¤ aoz-cna-zoo?
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE |9a99
December 8, 2005
The Honorable Kent A. Jordan VIA ELECTRONIC FILING
United States District Court
844 King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Pharmacia & Upjohn Co., LLC v. Sicor Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 04-833-KAJ
Dear Judge Jordan:
My firm, along with Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP, represents defendants Sicor
Inc. and Sicor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (jointly, "Sicor") in the above—referenced patent dispute. I
am writing to respectfully seek modification of a provision in the Court’s Amended Scheduling
Order entered on December 6, 2005 (D.I. 176) (the "Amended Order").
In a November 15, 2005 joint letter to the Court, the parties were not in complete
agreement on a schedule for briefing their respective motions to compel on privilege issues. In
its Amended Order, the Court compromised and selected January 13, 2006 as the date by which
briefing on such motions is to be complete. However, during the several day period before the
Court issued its Amended Order, the parties reached agreement on a host of issues relating to
how to proceed regarding the disputes over privileged documents, including a schedule for
briefing on the motions to compel. Unfortunately, we had not yet had the opportunity to seek the
Court’s approval of our proposed briefing schedule when we received the Amended Order.
Sicor therefore respectfully writes to ask that the Court modify that briefing schedule, consistent
with the parties’ agreement, as follows: (i) opening briefs to be filed by December 16, 2005; (ii)
opposition briefs to be filed by January 6, 2006; and (iii) reply briefs to be filed by January 20,
2006. For the Court’s convenience, a proposed form of order is attached.
I note that a few hours after receipt of the Amended Order, we alerted Pharmacia’s
counsel that it contained a briefing schedule inconsistent with the parties’ agreement, and we
suggested submitting the attached form of order to Your Honor along with a joint explanatory
letter. Pharmacia’s counsel have not yet been available to respond to that suggestion, however,
and given both the short time remaining before briefing needs to begin, and the fact that
Pharmacia’s agreement to the briefing schedule is in writing and is easily shown not to be subject
to dispute, we decided to make this request on our own rather than allow additional time to pass.
We therefore also have attached a December 7 letter, a December 5 letter, and two December 6
e-mails, which collectively constitute the parties’ agreement regarding how to proceed
concerning the privilege disputes. The agreed briefing schedule is set forth at the bottom of page
two of the December 5 letter.

Case 1:04-cv—00833-KAJ Document 178 Filed 12/08/2005 Page 2 of 2
Honorable Kent A. Jordan
December 8, 2005
Page 2
Sicor appreciates the Court’s consideration of this request, and will be available at the
COU1't’S convenience in the event that Your Honor has questions or wishes to discuss this matter
further.
Respectfully,
/s/ Steven J Balick
Steven J. Balick
SJB: mnl
Attachments
164306.1
cc: Maryellen Noreika, Esquire (via electronic mail; w/attachments)
Daniel A. Boehnen, Esquire (via electronic mail; w/attachments)
Reid L. Ashinofi Esquire (via electronic mail; w/attachments)

Case 1:04-cv-00833-KAJ

Document 178

Filed 12/08/2005

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:04-cv-00833-KAJ

Document 178

Filed 12/08/2005

Page 2 of 2