Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00457-SLR Document 35 Filed 11/07/2007 Page 1 of 2
Pu-1 1 tr.1 oe, Gor.oMA:~1 8. Spence, P. A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
JOHN C. F’Hll,..£.~|P$, JR. •=1·:r~ms~ri.vAiv1A Avi:. Amo enccnm er. susstax COUNTY c>i=‘?sC:i=;
STEPHEN W. SPENCE ,200 N, ER00,4 $;~RE;g·y· 1509 HIGHWAY ONE
'*°$E”" S- GOLDMAN wimsaeas. eetawraa tease DEWEY EE’*°'1· EE "·°`EE'
l.I$A C.Mc°:t.AU<'SNL1N _____MWMw_ [3ORl RRG-4ROC
JAMES P. HALL {EOE] $5$_42O¤ E30?) 2264305 (Fl
JOSEPH J. FARNAN` E {BOE? 555-4ElO (Fl
BRIAN E. FARNAN
DAV$D A. BtLSON'*
MEE..i$$A E. CARGINHNO REPLY T
’F’ENNSYL.VAN|A BAR ONLY
November 7, 2007
VIA E-FILING
The Honorable Mary Pat Thynge
J. Caleb Boggs Federat Building
844 N. King Street
Room 6100
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Cancer Research Technology and Schering Corp. v. Barr Laboratories,
Inc. and Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc., C.A. No. 07-457 {***1
Dear Judge Thynge:
My firm, along with Winston & Strawn LLP, represents Defendants Barr
Laboratories, Inc. and Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, "Barr"), in the above-captioned
litigation. We write in response to a letter sent to you today from Plaintiffs’ counsel regarding
Barr’s proposed protective order. Quite frankly, we are surprised by P1aintiffs’ latest letter.
First, neither Plaintiffs nor its counsel were authorized by Barr to submit a draft
protective order that purported to set forth Barr’s proposed protective order. Second, the
protective order that Plaintiffs submitted did not accurately reflect Barr’s position regarding
significant portions ofthe protective order, and it is inaccurate for Plaintiffs to suggest otherwise.
Third, contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertion, Barr did follow the Court’s instruction and highlighted
the key distinctions between the parties’ positions on the protective orders. Most importantly,
however, each of the provisions contained in the protective order submitted by Barr was
discussed with Plaintiffs counsel over the last several weeks, including utilization of a two—
tiered protective order to protect the parties’ confidential and proprietary information, who could
see highly confidential or confidential infomation, and how inadvertently produced documents
would be treated. For Plaintiffs counsel to suggest that somehow they are prejudiced by Barr
submitting a protective order that contained the provisions that had been discussed (but to which
an agreement had not been met) is curious at best. Barr does not feel, therefore, that any
continuance of tornorrow’s hearing is necessary.

Case 1:07-cv-00457-SLR Document 35 Filed 11/07/2007 Page 2 of 2 ?
The Honorable Mary Pat Thyrige
November 7, 2007
Page 2
Nevertheless, in the spirit of cooperation and in hope that the parties can reach
agreement, Barr is willing to agree to a continuance of the hearing to a time of the Court’s
choosing, and to further discuss these matters with counsel for Plaintiffs.
_ We look forward to speaking with you regarding these matters and are available
at the convenience ofthe Court.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ John C. Phillips, Jr.
John C. Phillips, Jr.
cc: Counsel of Record (via e·mai1)