The County of Santa Clara v. Astra USA, Inc et al

Filing 691


Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ASTRA USA, INC., ASTRA ZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, EVENTS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., BAYER CORPORATION, BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, PFIZER, INC., SCHERING-PLOUGH CORPORATION TAP PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS, INC., ZENECCA, INC., ZLB BEHRING LLC, SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION, SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION d/b/a GLAXO SMITHKLINE, WYETH, INC., WYETH PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendants. / IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California No. C 05-03740 WHA 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER CONCERNING DEFENDANT AVENTIS'S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS' PRODUCT DESIGNATION IN DISCOVERY The third amended case management order (Dkt. No. 667) sets forth the requirements for Stage Two of discovery in this case. Among other things, it requires defendants to answer two court-ordered interrogatories concerning a "designated drug," a single drug selected by plaintiffs for each defendant, to have been selected by July 19, 2010. Plaintiffs selected Ambien as the designated drug for defendant Aventis. On August 6, 2010, Aventis objected to this designation on grounds that Ambien is not a product at issue in this case. Plaintiffs' filed a response on August 12, and defendant Aventis replied on August 13. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 An order by Judge Chen from November 6, 2009 (Dkt. No. 511) addresses this issue. At that time the parties disputed whether plaintiffs could seek discovery concerning pricing information for products with certain labeler codes for which title is held by an entity related to the relevant defendant, such as a parent or subsidiary entity, but not the defendant itself. Judge Chen's order holds that plaintiffs are entitled to discovery concerning a product with a certain labeler code, "if there is a federal agency identifying a named defendant as the title holder for [the] labeler code." Judge Chen ruled that the products at issue for discovery are those that a federal government agency website lists as manufactured by the defendants. Ambien's labeler code is 00024. The Health Resources and Services Administration website lists Sanofi-Aventis US LCC as the manufacturer for the 00024 labeler code (Exh. 1 to Baig Decl.). It is true that Sanofi-Aventis US LLC has not been sued. On the other hand, plaintiffs have provided evidence that "Aventis" merged into Sanofi-Aventis. This has not been directly disputed by defendant Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc., but defendant Aventis claims that Sanofi-Aventis is a separate entity. The submissions by the parties on this issue are confusing as to whether the "Aventis" that merged into Sanofi-Aventis was Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc. To get to the bottom of this, there will be a hearing on AUGUST 31, 2010, AT 10:00 A.M. Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc. must bring to the hearing a witness prepared to testify under oath based on personal knowledge concerning the exact history of the merger and the relationships between the various related companies. If defendant loses its objection, it must be prepared, by having personnel ready, to meet the deadline to complete Stage Two discovery by September 30, 2010. United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 13, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?