Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv—00833-KAJ Document 103-2 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 1 013

Case 1 :04-cv—00833-KAJ Document 103-2 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 2 of 3
H 1221 Avenue ofthe Amerlcos
somumscnrlu mm s Rosswmln np NGWYOM NY 10020 Chicago
2l2.768.é700 Kansas CW
l;l;¤3Q8#:_,¢%¤5¢v 212.7sa.sao0r¤x LOS Angeles
[email protected] wWW·S°°n°n$°h°|n·°°m New york
Son Francisco
Short Hills, lv..l.
Sf. Louis
._ Washington, D. C.
West Palm Beach
September 9, 2005
VIA FACSIMILE [312-913-0002) I
Joshua R. Rich, Esq.
McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP
300 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606-6709
Re: Pharmacia & Upjohn Company LLC v. Sicor Inc. 04 Civ 833 (KAJ)
Various Discovgy Matters
Dear Joshua:
In response to your letters of September 7 and 9, 2005 and your notice of deposition for
Sicor’s expert witness Dr. Douglas Clark, please be advised that neither our agreement on
discovery nor the Scheduling Order provides for expert depositions prior to the exchange of both
sides’ expert reports with respect to the area on which the parties’ experts are opining. Certainly
our understanding, in this case and as a matter of general practice, is that expert reports are to be
exchanged prior to expert depositions being taken, so that they can be taken once,
comprehensively and efficiently. We are prepared to honor your notice as a priority to depose
Dr. Clark before we depose Pharmacia’s expert witness, if any, on invalidity issues, but we do
not believe such deposition is appropriate prior to your delivery of your expert’s invalidity
opinion and Dr. Clark’s review of that opinion.
In addition, we received your letter dated September 8, 2005, regarding yesterday’s
deposition and our objections to Pharmacia’s response to Sicor’s interrogatory directed to
"secondary considerations? With respect to the deposition, I understand Hom discussion with
my colleagues that the deposition of Sicor’s 30(b)(6) designee lasted 10 hours and that there was
no dispute regarding the scope of the deposition notice or about any of the matters you raised in
your letter. With respect to the secondary considerations point, we have still not received a
response to our letter dated August 31, 2005 detailing the problems with Pharmacia’s response. I
would appreciate a response to my letter. If we do not resolve our differences on this matter by
next Tuesday, we plan to timely apprise and to raise these matters with Judge Jordan at the
September 19 discovery conference.

Case 1 :04-cv—00833-KAJ Document 103-2 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 3 of 3
Sonnenschein
SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP
Joshua R. Rich, Esq.
September 9, 2005
Page 2
I will respond to you early next week regarding dates for the resumption of the 30(b)(6)
deposition of Allyn Becker to which you refer.
Finally, Mr. Boehnen’s statement at the commencement of yesterday’s Sicor witness
deposition that Pharmacia is not prepared to produce witnesses who can fully respond to each of
the topics in Sicor’s August 1, 2005 Rule 30(b)(6) notice relating to Phannacia’s sales,
marketing and licensing of idambicin, and valuations of its patent rights, until the earliest of
September 29 and October 18 or 19, 2005, is unacceptable to Sicor. As you well know and as
we have discussed, Sicor needs these depositions to enable our economic expert to do his work
and produce a report in a timely marmer. Your withholding of a 30(b)(6) witness on these topics
until mid to late October will bear directly on the date Sicor will be able to provide its economic
expert’s report, and also will make it virtually impossible for Sicor to complete needed follow up
discovery by the current November 4 discovery deadline. We request that Pharmacia’s sales and
marketing witnesses all be produced on mutually agreeable dates prior to the end of September.
Of similar concern, Pharmacia apparently has still not completed its production of
numerous documents relating to, among other items, Pha1macia’s sales, marketing, strategic ,
plans, commission schedules, budgeting and pricing related to idarubicin, which documents were
requested in Sicor’s First and Second Requests for the Production of Documents served on
November 29, 2004 and July 15, 2005, and reiterated lll David Baum’s July 6, 2005 letter to you.
Although Pharmacia has produced some documents relating to some of these categories, many of
those documents are incomplete, and/or do not cover the full range of relevant years. (As but
one example, you have produced portions of a relevant, Global Oncology Franchise Strat Plan
2003-2005, with many pages missing, and no such document for crucial earlier periods (1999-
2002)). Unless Pharmacia commits to a full and complete production of these materials to be
completed prior to September 19, we also plan to timely apprise and to raise these matters with
Judge Jordan at the September 19 discovery conference.
Brian T. Moriarty
cc: Maryellen Noreika, Esq.
John Day, Esq.
l749ll39

Case 1:04-cv-00833-KAJ

Document 103-2

Filed 09/19/2005

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00833-KAJ

Document 103-2

Filed 09/19/2005

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00833-KAJ

Document 103-2

Filed 09/19/2005

Page 3 of 3