Case 1 :O4—cv-00343-JJF Document 625-2 Filed O4/O9/2007 Page 2 of 4
\/Westlaw
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d Page 1
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2006 WL 305431 (E.D.Pa.)
(Cite as: 2006 WL 305431 (E.D.Pa.))
C period was untimely); NrOl’(1l`I[S P/zrrrm. Corr;. ll.
Abbtnr Lab., 203 F.R.D. 159. 164
court decided to extend discovery for the limited
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. Purlfldsa et addressing the issues Prasallrad in the
motion to compel). iFN3l
United States District Cond El; The Court set an initial fact discovery
E_D_ pennsyivnnid deadline of October 31, 2004 and expert
CELGENE CQRPORATIQNI Plaintiff, discovery deadline for December 31, 2004.
v_ (Docket No. 19.) Several subsequent Orders
QENTOCQR, INC_ Deiendont_ extended the fact discovery and expert
No_ (jiv_A_ 03-59’78_ discovery deadlines. (Docket No. 22)
(extending fact discovery deadline to
F€b_ 8, 2006 January 31, 2005 and expert discovery
Camille M. Miller, Philip o. Kireher, Cozen at deadline te Mareh 3l, 2005): (Deeket Ne-
o·c6nn6r,1>.c.,l¤hilnaelphie,1¤A,rerplrrintirr. 33) (extending faet diseeyery deadline te
April 29, 2005 and expert discovery
Theodore F. Haussman. Jr., Wilson M. Brown, III, deadline ld Julld 3Or 2005); (Deeket N0- 39)
Drinker Biddle se Reuth LLP, Philadelphia, PA. for (extending feet diseeyery deadline te May
D€f€nda_n[_ 31, 2005 and expert discovery deadline to
July 29, 2005); (Docket No. 43) (extending
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER fact discovery deadline to June 30, 2005 and
expert discovery deadline to August 29,
BUCKWALTER, j_ 2005); (Docket No. 45) (extending expert
discovery deadline to November 15, 2005);
*1 Although the Federal Rules er Civil Procedure, (Deeket Ne- 47) (extending expert diseeyery
speeirieelly Rule 37, contain no deadline for the deadline te Neyeniher 29, 2005): and
tiling of rr motion to compel, "district courts have (Deeket Ne 53) (extending expert diseeyery
broad discretion to manage discovery." Flynn v. daadllllald Decambar 3Or 2005)-
Health Advocates, hte., N6. 03- 3764, 2005 us. Althengh Plaintiff initially addressed
Dist LEXIS l704, at *26 (E_D_Pa_ F€b_ gi 2005) discovery issues with respect to Defendants
(citations omitted); Fed.R.Civ.P. 37. In this case, tehnttal PXPGU rapdrl by Mark LYrl€h (Plus
Plaintiffs Motion is untimely for three reasons. MOI- td Cdmpru at 4)» Plalrlllrf lldrad lrl its'
Reply that the parties were able to resolve
First, [ho Court has already provided ample lSSLl€. Thus, HS I]Ol;CS, the issue
opportunity for discovery in this case, FN!] and is mod? (Pl-'s RBPIY at 2-)
Plaintiffs Motion was tiled over four months after
the expiration of the fact discovery deadline. [FN2| As Hated lll r00rll0r€ lr arial nnniereas
See Flynn, 2005 U_S_ Dist LEXIS I704_ at >•=26_2g extensions, the fact discovery deadline
(holding that e motion tiled less than three rnenths expired en Jane 30, 2005- Plaintiff never
after [ho discovery deadline had passed was I°€qU€St€d an €Xt€HSlOH ofthe fact dlSCOV€1'y
untimely); Kererlrn n Bzeiweir, N6. 04-00769, 2005 deadline heyend June 30, 2005-
U_S_ Dist. LEXIS l0852, at *2_5 (E_D_ ps June li Nonetheless, Plaintiff tiled their Motion to
2005) (denying plaintiffs motion to compel a second C0mP€l Oil N0V€mb€f l li 2005-
day of deposition testimony because it was tiled after
an already extended fact discovery deadline); HL Plallluhc tailed ld site ally daclsldrls
Ferranti Int’l, Inc. v. Willard, N6. 02-cv-404, 2003 eentrary te these listed in this paragraph-
os. niet. LEXIS 12240, at *7-8 tan. pn. June 26, (Pl·'s Reply at 4-)
2003) (holding that a motion to compel a deposition
filed on the last day of an already extended discovery Seeend, uid Court sdnnises that Plalrlllfr was aware
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 625-2 Filed O4/O9/2007 Page 3 of 4
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d Page 2
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2006 WL 305431 (E.D.Pa.)
(Cite as: 2006 WL 305431 (E.D.Pa.))
of the deficiencies it considered in Defendant's Judgment on January 17, 2006. FN5| (Docket No.
production of documents and corporate designee 61.) Thus, as Defendant points out, "at some point,
testimony many weeks, if not months, prior to the discovery in this case——as in any other case——must
filing of their Motion to Compel. Plaintiff concedes end" and this case is ripe for summary judgment.
that it waited "until all supplemental discovery ha [d] (Def. Reply at 2, 19) (citing Koresko, 2005 U.S. Dist.
been voluntary [sic] produced by [Defendant]" before LEXIS 10852, at *3).)
filing their Motion. (Pl.'s Mot. to Compel at 1.) The
only reason that Plaintiff cites for the delay in filing LN; The Court notes that Plaintiff never
their Motion is that "given the tremendous volume of filed a motion requesting a suspension of the
documents that have been produced by [Defendant] deadline for dispositive motions pending the
[Plaintiff] had to take the time necessary to review outcome of their Motion to Compel.
all of these documents requir[ing] [Plaintiff] to file
its Motion after the close of discovery." (Pl.'s Reply For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs Motion to
at 4.) Plaintiffs argument is unpersuasive, Compel is DENIED.
particularly in view of the lateness of the filing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Without mentioning any dates, Plaintiff states that
only "[a]fter issuing subpoenas to third parties, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2006 WL 305431
Celgene realized that Centocor should have produced (E.D.Pa.)
certain documents in its own production." (Pl.'s Mot.
to Compel at 4) (emphasis added). Yet, evidencing Motions, Pleadings and Filings (Back to top)
that it was aware of deficiencies in Defendant's
production prior to filing the Motion to Compel, · 2007 WL 855845 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and
Plaintiff states that after reviewing Defendant's Affidavit) Celgene Corporation's Opposition to
responses to interrogatories, it thought certain Centocor, Inc's Motion in Limine to Strike Celgene`s
responses "did not make sense and therefore Demand for Monetary Relief (Feb. 2, 2007)
subpoenaed [a third-party]." (Pl.'s Reply at 6.) Thus,
Plaintiff perceived deficiencies in Defendant's · 2007 WL 855846 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and
document production several weeks, if not months, Affidavit) Defendant Centocor, Inc.'s Memorandum
prior to November ll, 2005, the date it filed its of Law in Opposition to the Motion in Limine of [
Motion. Plaintiff Celgene Corporation to Preclude Evidence
and Testimony Relating to the Survey of Michael B.
*2 Further, with respect to the depositions, Plaintiff Mazis (Feb. 2, 2007)
reached its ten fact deposition limit on September 8,
2005. FN4l (Pl.'s Mot. to Compel at 3.) Despite the • 2007 WL 855847 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and
postponement of the deposition of Dr. Palekar and by Affidavit) Celgene Corporation's Opposition to
proceeding with the depositions of Dr. Dittrich and Centocor, Inc's Motion in Limine for A Spoliation
Dr. Weisman, Plaintiff was aware, as late as Adverse Inference Instruction (Feb. 2, 2007)
September 2005, that it was fast approaching the ten
fact deposition limit. Thus, Plaintiff had ample time • 2007 WL 855848 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and
to request leave of court to take additional fact Affidavit) Celgene Corporation's Opposition to
depositions or to file a motion to compel Defendant Centocor, Inc's Motions in Limine to Preclude the
to produce additional corporate designees to further Testimony of Barry S. Sussman and Dr. William
address the topics outlined in Plaintiffs Rule 30(b)(6) Trombetta (Feb. 2, 2007)
deposition notice.
• 2007 WL 855849 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and
@ Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Affidavit) Defendant Centocor, Inc.'s Memorandum
30(a)g2)gA) requires a party to seek leave of of Law in Opposition to Celgene Corporation's
court to take more than ten depositions. Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence and
Fed.R.Civ.P. 30ga)(2)(A[. Testimony Relating to the Survey Report and
Testimony of Kenneth B. Germain (Feb. 2, 2007)
Third, despite arguing for much needed
documentation, testimony and alterations of • 2007 WL 855873 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and
Defendant's answers to Plaintiffs Request for Affidavit) Defendant Centocor, Inc.'s Memorandum
Admissions, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary in Opposition to the Motion in Limine of Plaintiff
© 2007 Thomson/W est. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 625-2 Filed O4/O9/2007 Page 4 of 4
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d Page 3
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2006 WL 305431 (E.D.Pa.)
(Cite as: 2006 WL 305431 (E.D.Pa.))
Celgene Corporation to Preclude Evidence and Plaintiff Celgene Corporations Motion to Compel
Testimony Relating to the Survey of James H. Fouss Depositions and Discovery Responses as to
(Feb. 2, 2007) Defendant Centocor, Inc. (Nov. ll, 2005)Original
Image of this Document (PDF)
• 2007 WL 483299 (Expert Report and Affidavit)
Expert Report of Kenneth B. Germain Per F.RC.P. • 2005 WL 5190211 (Expert Report and Affidavit)
26(a)(2)(B) (Jan. 19, 2007) Expert Report of Michael B. Mazis, Ph.D. (Sep. l2,
2005)
• 2007 WL 575940 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and
Affidavit) Motion In Limine of Plaintiff Celgene • 2005 WL 5190212 (Expert Report and Affidavit)
Corporation to Preclude Evidence and Testimony (Report or Affidavit of James H. Fouss) (May 12,
Relating to the Survey of Michael B. Mazis (Jan. 19, 2005)
2007)
• 2004 WL 2717057 (Trial Pleading) Defendant
• 2007 WL 575941 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Centocor, Inc.'s Answer and Defenses (May 17,
Affidavit) Motion In Limine of Plaintiff Celgene 2004)Origina1 Image of this Document (PDF)
Corporation to Preclude Evidence and Testimony
Relating to the Survey of James H. Fouss (Jan. 19, • 2004 WL 2717050 (Trial Motion, Memorandum
2007) and Affidavit) Reply Brief of Defendant Centocor,
Inc. in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss the
• 2007 WL 575942 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Complaint (Feb. 10, 2004)Original Image of this
Affidavit) Motion in Limine of Plaintiff Celgene Document (PDF)
Corporation to Preclude Evidence and Testimony
Relating to the Survey Report and Testimony of • 2004 WL 2717039 (Trial Motion, Memorandum
Kenneth B. Germain (Jan. 19, 2007) and Affidavit) Plaintiff Celgene Corporatiorfs
Response in Opposition to Motion of Defendant
• 2006 WL 736933 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Centocor, Inc. to Dismiss the Complaint (Jan. 20,
Affidavit) Celgene Corporation’s Response to 2004)Origina1 Image of this Document (PDF)
Centocor, Inc.'s Motion to Deem as Admitted Its
Requests for Admissions Nos. 11, 13, 15, 19,37- • 2004 WL 2717043 (Trial Motion, Memorandum
42,44—50,55—56,59,60,62—77,84·101,104- and Affidavit) Plaintiff Celegene Corporation's
116,ll9,122—125,134—137 (Feb. 7, 2006)Origina1 Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant
Image of this Document (PDF) Centocor, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss (Jan. 20,
2004)Original Image of this Document (PDF)
• 2005 WL 5267351 (Partial Expert Testimony)
(Partial Testimony of Gabriel M. Gelb) (Dec. 16, • 2()03 WL 23903567 (Trial Motion, Memorandum
2005) and Affidavit) Memorandum of Law of Defendant
Centocor, Inc., in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss
• 2005 VVL 5221353 (Expert Deposition) Oral the Complaint (Dec. 19, 2003)Original Image of this
Deposition of Michael B. Mazis, Ph.D. (Dec. 15, Document (PDF)
2005)
• 2003 WL 23903554 (Trial Pleading) Complaint
• 2005 WL 5221354 (Expert Deposition) Oral (Oct. 29, 2003)Origina1 Image of this Document
Deposition of James H. Fouss (Dec. 14, 2005) (PDF)
• 2005 WL 5297937 (Expert Deposition) Oral •2:03cv05978 (Docket) (Oct. 29, 2003)
Deposition of James H. Fouss (Dec. 14,
2005)Origina1 Image of this Document (PDF) END OF DOCUMENT
• 2005 WL 5221355 (Expert Deposition) Oral
Deposition of Kenneth B. Germain, Esquire (Dec. 1,
2005)
• 2005 WL 3724421 (Trial Motion, Memorandum
and Affidavit) Memorandum of Law in Support of
© 2007 Thomson/W est. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 625-2
Filed 04/09/2007
Page 1 of 4
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 625-2
Filed 04/09/2007
Page 2 of 4
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 625-2
Filed 04/09/2007
Page 3 of 4
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 625-2
Filed 04/09/2007
Page 4 of 4
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms