Free Memorandum in Opposition - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-04911-CRB

Document 42

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 DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO RELATOR'S EX PARTE MOTION TO EXCEED THE 15-PAGE LIMITATION ON OPPOSITION BRIEFS

ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, Defendant.

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 42

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.

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. 2. 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. 3. On November 14, 2007, Lilly's counsel 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. 4. Late in the afternoon of November 15, 2007, Relator's counsel contacted Lilly's

counsel asking whether Lilly would object to Relator filing a 25-page response brief. Notably, Relator received Lilly's Motion to Dismiss on September 28, 2007, but waited over six weeks to make this request. Lilly offered to stipulate to the page extension if Relator agreed to Lilly's earlier request to move the hearing date to enlarge the time available to respond and avoid the complications created by the Thanksgiving holiday. Relator not only refused but, in her current ex parte motion, failed to inform the Court of the offer made by Lilly and instead characterized Lilly's offer as a "refusal" to stipulate. Relator has now filed an ex parte request seeking leave to file a brief in excess of this Court's fifteen page deadline. 5. 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 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. 6. Lilly therefore respectfully requests that Relator's motion be denied. Alternatively,

should this Court grant Relator's motion, Lilly requests that both Lilly and Relator be given until
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 42

Filed 11/16/2007

Page 3 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

December 7, 2007 to file their replies and that the hearing date on these motions be re-set for December 21, 2007. This additional time would be warranted both by the length of Relator's Motion to Dismiss response and the difficulty of filing two replies in the shortened period imposed by the Thanksgiving holiday. WHEREFORE, Lilly respectfully requests that this Court deny Relator's ex parte motion to exceed the 15-Page Limitation on Opposition Briefs.

Dated: November 16, 2007

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

By: s/ Timothy T. Scott Attorneys For Defendant ELI LILLY AND COMPANY

3
OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE MOTION TO FILE RESPONSE IN EXCESS OF FIFTEEN PAGES, CASE NO. 07-CV-04911-CRB
SF1 1472101v.1