Free Declaration in Support - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-04911-CRB

Document 43

Filed 11/16/2007

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Timothy T. Scott (SBN 126971) [email protected] Geoffrey M. Ezgar (SBN 184243) [email protected] Paul L. Yanosy (SBN 233014) [email protected] SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 California Street San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: (415) 772-1200 Facsimile: (415) 772-7400 Paul E. Kalb, M.D. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1501 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 736-8000 Facsimile: (202) 736-8711 Nina M. Gussack Andrew R. Rogoff PEPPER HAMILTON LLP 3000 Two Logan Square Eighteenth and Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799 Telephone: (215) 981-4000 Facsimile: (215) 981-4750 Attorneys For Defendant ELI LILLY AND COMPANY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ex rel. JAYDEEN VICENTE and JAYDEEN VICENTE Individually, Relators, v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 07-cv-04911-CRB Assigned to: Hon. Charles R. Breyer DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY T. SCOTT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO RELATOR'S EX PARTE MOTION TO EXCEED THE 15-PAGE LIMITATION ON OPPOSITION BRIEFS

ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, Defendant.

DECLARATION IN OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITATION, CASE NO. 07-CV-04911-CRB
SF1 1472101v.1

Case 3:07-cv-04911-CRB

Document 43

Filed 11/16/2007

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1.

I, Timothy T. Scott, declare: I am an attorney at law licensed to practice in the State of California and am a partner

with the law firm of Sidley Austin LLP, counsel to defendant Eli Lilly and Company ("Lilly") in the above-captioned matter. I make this declaration in support of Lilly's Opposition to Relator's Ex Parte Motion to Exceed the 15-Page Limitation on Opposition Briefs.. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration and, if called as a witness, could and would competently testify thereto. 2. The hearing dates for three pending motions in this case--Defendant Eli Lilly and

Company's ("Lilly") Motion to Dismiss, Lilly's Motion to Stay and Relator's Motion to Remand-- are set for December 7, 2007. Because the Thanksgiving holiday falls within the midst of the briefing schedule on these motions, both parties will have only three business days to prepare replies (with Lilly having to file two separate replies), which are due on November 21, 2007. 3. If the November 21, 2007 deadline stands, counsel for Lilly will have an extremely

limited time period to discuss Lilly's replies with Lilly's Indiana-based in-house counsel. Moreover, at least two of the attorneys on this matter for Lilly have had to, or will have to, cancel or modify their Thanksgiving air travel in order to accommodate this schedule. 4. On November 14, 2007, I contacted Relator's counsel and suggested, in light of the

tight schedule imposed by the Thanksgiving holiday, that the parties stipulate to additional time for the filing of reply briefs and a re-setting of the hearing date for a week or two after December 7th. Relator rejected this suggestion. 5. Late in the afternoon of November 15, 2007, Mark Burton, counsel for Relator,

contacted me asking whether Lilly would object to Relator filing a 25-page response brief. I offered to stipulate to the page extension if Relator agreed to my earlier request to move the hearing date to enlarge the time available to respond and avoid the complications created by the Thanksgiving holiday. Relator refused this offer. 6. Granting Relator's request will require Lilly to respond to two briefs, one of them 25

pages in length, in less than three business days. While Lilly is prepared to file a reply in response to

DECLARATION IN OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITATION, CASE NO. 07-CV-04911-CRB
SF1 1472101v.1

Case 3:07-cv-04911-CRB

Document 43

Filed 11/16/2007

Page 3 of 3

1 2 3

a brief adhering to this Court's page limit, it would impose an unnecessary hardship on Lilly and its counsel to respond to a 25 page brief in such a short time period. I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California that

4 the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on November 16, 2007, at San Francisco, California. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE MOTION TO FILE RESPONSE IN EXCESS OF FIFTEEN PAGES, CASE NO. 07-CV-04911-CRB
SF1 1472101v.1

/s/ Timothy T. Scott