City of Winter Haven v. Cleveland Indians Baseball Company Limited Partnership

Filing 295

US District Court Middle District of Florida PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT Exhibit Number: 1 6 . 1 2 6:06md01769ACCDAB In Re: Seroquel Products Liability Litigation Date Identified: Date Admitted:

Exhibit 16.12

Jaffe,Jonathan
From: $ent: To: Cc: Subject: P e n n o c kPaul . F r i d a yJune29,20074:09PM , '[e-mail]' lsrte e henymcmonnet l@dech'e'[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; f r com ' f epb e r . @ c c c a r l e r . c o m ; rt.e d . '; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail], m'; Mike;Jaffe,Jonathan Fix R e :Technical lssues l"le've been monethan patient. }'|e'll

Y o u n i n b r e a c h o r y o u ' v e d r a g g e d it on fan too long. d e a l w it next week. S e n t fnom my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

--- --Original Message---F r o m : Dupre, Andrew<[e-mail]> T o : Pennock,Paul C C : Fneebery, Jamesl. <[e-mail]>; Magazinen,Fred lr|inchester, McConnell, Stephen <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>1 T o n y <Awinchester@mccarteF. com> S e n t : Fri lun 29 t4tL5|L5 2Og7 Subject; Technical Fix Issues D e a nP a u l : F n e d Magazinen forwarded rE you email message lune 27th (please see below) regarding the of t e c h n i c a l fixes we have agneedto implementas a result of several heet and confen sessions, t h e last of which occunred on June 5. I have provided sevenal wnitten updates to Mike P e d e r s o nregarding these issues. I here offer additional responsesregarding the issues that r manage. f have identified those items which are not technical issues or that ane managed b y others. I'd be happy to discuss these issues with you on your technical team if you would like. My bestAndnew . Dupre, Esq. 5 M c C a r t e r& E n g l i s h , L L P 4 0 5 North King Stneet 8th Floor W i l m i n g t o n , Delaware19801 P h o n e : 302-984-6328 F a x : 302-984-03L]. F r o m : Pennock, Paul [mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> ] S e n t : Wednesday, June 27, 2OA75:05 PM T o : Magazinen,Fredl McConnell, Stephen [e-mail]; C c : [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Pederson,Mike; Jaffe, Jonathan; nichl@lpmt r i a l l a w . c o m ; [e-mail]@roth-Law.com; [e-mail] S u b j e c t : Continuing IT Productlon Failures Y o u r co-counsel wnote us on June 25th reganding the agreements that wene reached on or before l u n e 7th. As you will see from reviewing the below, I suggest you have then in Onlandonext w e e k to answerfon these breaches in our agneements and their Beneral failure to ablde by the their discovery obligations. and CMOs
32

t. Load Files The conrected load files are to be done by luly 7th, pen our ag^eement. Your p e o p l e now tell us that it will perhaps happenby July 15th. That's not acceptable, We had a n agreementabout which we inforned the Count and this must be done by July 7th. AstraZenecadid not promise a luly 7 delivery. As you will note from youn filing RESPONSE: o f J u n e 7 , 2 A O 7 t l t l e d " P l a i n t i f f s l o i n t S t a t e m e n to f R e s o l v e d s s u e s " , A s t r a Z e n e c a ' s I p n o d u c t i o n vendor provided a best estlmate of four weeksto complete this job. Plaintlffs r e p e a t e d that estimate to the court, properly phnasing lt as only an estimate. It may a c t u a l l y turn out to be five weeks because the vendor had sometechnical difficulty i m p l e m e n t i n gthe Excel sheet solution. The problem was that the vendonhad to wnite a n o n m a l i z a t i o n programto unhide all nows, standardize columnwidth etc.. The vendor initially tried an off-the-shelf normalization program, but it turned out to be unreliabl.e. T h e Excel problem affected deliveries on Load Files becauseit took very substantial n e s o u r c e sto get the Excel solution wonking, and those high level technical resources were t h e r e f o r e not available to wonk on the load files. A s an overall issue, Mike Pedersonand I discussed tirnlines extensively at the last rneet and c o n f e n . f generally wanned that it is impossible to provide a concrete timeline on an u n t n i e d process. Plaintiffs absolutely lnsisted on tirnelines, even if they wene relatively n o u g hand would have to be amended laten. It is not cornect that the estinates that provided vlenemeant to be or undenstoodas deadlines. Mike Pederson's enail of AstnaZeneca J u n e 7, 2007 addressedto lim Freebery and others expressly con'Firms this fact. 2 . Meta data consistency. We can not verify your assention that it has all been corected u n t i l we necelve the load files under number1. above. R E S P O N S E : agnee. I'11 be happy to assist Jonathan Jaffe (or other nemberof your I t e c h n i c a L team) in any quality assurancesteps he wants to do on the load files. l4etaData 3 . Swapped MetaDataFields You also violated the agreements to the Swapped as You were supposed identify the load files that were lncorrect within 7 days. Fields. to Y o u ' v e s t i l l n o t d o n et h a t . RESPONSE: This is incornect. My email of June 14 to Jonathan laffe and Mike Pedersonstates t h a t there appear to be no swapped netadata fields in the underlying TIFFS, AstraZeneca c o n d u c t e dan extensive investlgation and found no such ennors. Instead, this is a vendor e r r o n in the load files which are on schedule to be corrected shortly. 4 . Page Bneaks. You were to complete this by JuIy 3.9th. You have alneady anticipatorily b r e a c h e dthis, becauseyoun people have now told us penhapsJuly 31st. wloreover,despite p r o m i s e s to complete this on a rolling basis, you've not done so. This solution has already been implemented. The first pFoductlon containing the RESPONSE: n e w type of extnacted text files was the supplementalforeign language docunent pnoduction, d e l i v e r e d to Plaintiffs on lune 25. Astrazenecadid not pnomisea July 19 deliveny fon all 1 9 . 3 million pages, and the date of luly L9th appears nowhene any of our discussions. in A g a i n , the vendor provided its best estinate of six weeksto complete this project. As I w a r n e d Plaintiffs at the meet and confer on June 6, this particular estimate was very difficult becausethe solution had not yet been tested. Plaintiffs nonetheless insisted that a n estimate for this solution be given that day, and Astrazenecagave the best estimate a v a i l a b l e at the time. During implementation, the vendor discovenedmultiple technical i s s u e s with scaling this solution to a pnoduction of 10.3 million pages (Plaintiffs had

ppovenit wonkedonly on productions of appnoximately1006 pages). These lssues took some t i m e to resolve, but now are cornected, hence the ability to provide page breaks in one of t h e June 25th delivenies. Astnazeneca has already begunto institute this solution on a r o l l i n g basis (starting June 25) and will continue to do so. 5 . Excel Sheets Youn people have only now given us a timetable with respect to the Excel S h e e t s . You've now told us that it won't be done by July 31st, instead of the genenally u n d e n s t o o don oun about July 7th. This is anothen bneach. R E S P O N SAstnaZeneca E: did not promise a JuIy 7 delivery of Excel sheets, Plalntiffs'filing o f lune 7 does not even provide an estimated timeline fon this work, becauseno estimate was a v a i l a b l e at the tlme of the June 6 meet and confer. I frankly (meaningno disrespect) do n o t knowwhere a JuIy 7 estimate for this work camefnom. Even if a July 7 date had been g i v e n (I do not believe it was), it would have been only an estimate, consistent with all the June 7 filing. o t h e r estimates listed in Plaintlffs' A s I stated in #1 above, Astrazenecahad to have its vendor write a nonmalization protocol f r o m scnatch in order to effect this solution. An off-the-shelf normallzation would not work This took sometime and a not-inconsiderable expense, f o r this agreed solution (we tried). that work is now done, and Astrazenecais sifting through 10,3 million pages of Howeven, d o c u n e n t sto isolate all the Exce1 sheets and nun the solutlon on them. 6 . Objective Coding You agneedto teII us whether you h a d cneated Objective Coding. You h a v e told us that you have. Wewould llke a listing of t h e fields that you have collected. P l e a s e get back to me by Frtday as to whether you will g i v e us the identtty of the fields. to An over whether AstrazenecawiII go a b o v e and beyond CMO2 provide R E S P O N S E : angument m e t a d a t aother than the 17 fields provided therein is a l e g a l , n o t a t e c h n i c a l i s s u e . A s t n a z e n e c amet the terms o'F the agreementmadeat our m e e t and confers by investigating this i s s u e and confinming the existence of other metadata, 7. Privilege Logs We have no curent dispute. thenefore continue to produce privilege logs undenthe curnent

AstraZenecawill RESPONSEI template.

8 . Redaction Logs We need to have one additional phone call with you negandingyour a s s e r t i o n that you did not agneeto this. I'd I sent emails to R E S P O N S E : be happy to be involved in that call if you would like. J o n a t h a n Jaffe on this topic on June !3 and 25. Those inquinies have not yet been answered. for redaction demand T o be clear, Astrazenecahas not rejected what appeansto be Plaintiffs' in Plaintiffs' l o g s . Wewoufd Just like someexplanation of why pnovision of such logs is v i e w not pointless busy work, given that Plaintiffs alneady have all the information that themselves. c o u l d possibly be included in a 1og attached to the nedacteddocuments 9 . BLankDocuments Continue to serve the "blank" pages that you say ane being producedb/c t h e y actually have someheader and footer and thus technically have to be produced. As to t h e non-Excel blank pages, we do not believe thts is a "small subset" as you assert. by P u r s u a n t to your timetable, you will ldentify all of the problematic documents June 30th. by ne-service of the conrected documents JuIy 7th, as T h i s date is acceptable and we expect agreed.

RESP0NSE: Astrazenecais nearing completion of its investigation/technical fix of this Please bean in mind that the vast majonity of these "blank" pages actually contain issue, h e a d e r - f o o t e n lnformation that was created by the author of the sheets (though pnobably in e r n o r ) and is not privileged. Astrazenecais fine wlth continuing to produce those d o c u m e n t s ,so long as Plaintiffs are aware and accept that they ane not neally "blank" and do n o t constitute production enrors in the normaf sense of that term. f n addition, there is a ninority of blank page errors comingfrom two sources. The first are o c c a s i o n a l failures of the blank-page renrrver utility to run when an Exce1 sheet is convented documents identified by Jonathan laffe contain thls t o TIFF. Several of the Bates numbened were identified, it was easy to have the vendor ne-TIFF them. e r n o r . Oncethose documents - no infonmation is missing and Plalntiffs still necelved the T h e s e pages are true blanks e n t i r e spneadsheet. T h e second problem was exemplified by a documentshaned by Scott Alten at the lune 6 meet and pages. Astnazeneca has isolated this contalned a series of mismatched c o n f e r . This document threw off the production set in which a last minute addition of documents e r r o n to a single pnocess. Astnazeneca'svendor created a bit mapvaniance detection utility to v e n d o r ' s Bates c r a w l thnough the entine production and identify all such documents. As of today, the vendor out of 10.3 mlllion pages fiOA pages of documents h a s identified this error on approximateJ.y p r o d u c e d (.05%), again all ln one productlon set. produced (fon T h e n eare sometechnical issues about how Plaintiffs maywant these documents e x a m p l e , should they keep the old Bates numberseven if the page counts will differ, or get n e w Bates numbens). I would like to work with youn technical team to produce conrected Again, the assention in c o p i e s of these documents a mannerthat will satisfy Plaintiffs. wonk is inconrect. t h a t therc ls a luly 7 deadline for tonpletion of this 1 : A . IP10 Production. This is no longer an issue. : . t . Item 1Z,/CRF's: We don't knowwhat you're refenrlng to, although we think you might be r e f e r r i n g to CANoA. Please explaln and we'Il respond to your assertion that it was produced we b y June 8th, If it is CANDA, agree that it was produced. You R E S P O N S E : are correct that Item 12 refers to CANDA. t2. Docunents: lrle received the hand drives' Fonelgn Language

R E S P O N SAstrazeneca remains open to a Joint translation effort on these documents. E: p l a i n t i f f s have not yet answered AstraZeneca's repeated inquiries on that topic. 1 3 . 30b6 depo Exhlbits: on there. saying they are all We received a hard dnlve and your cornmunication

We are not agreeing to the "key wond" search of any L 4 . t^lehave rejected the Certiflcation. k i n d and neven have. Oun position on this has been consistent fnom the beginning. !r|ewant e v e r y t h i n g that touches, concennsor nelates to 5eroquel, atypical antipsychotic and the i n j u r l e s alleged to be caused by Seroquel in any way. If it meets the definitlon of d i s c o v e r a b l e under the federal rules and this court's orders, then we want it and are If you have only been searching by your "key tenms" list, we have a big e n t i t L e d to it. p r o b l e m . Also, we have repeatedly insisted that we receive any emails or other documents in s e n t by a custodian, deleted by him/hen but pnesenved sonebodyelse's files or computer, pneservation person is one of the 80 on not does not matter. lrle also ane e t c . Whetherthat n o t limiting it to AZ's emaif account but any emaiL account funded by AZ. Now, and p a r t i c u l a r l y years ago, Blackbenry Service for exampleNas not on a corporate email system.

If it exists, we want it. Also, you wene supposed makesure that any information from any to produced. In essence, you have played a long running gameof hide the ball cornnon dnives be a n d I'm just thankful that we have a Magistnate Judge who will understandwhat has been going o n hene. This is not a "technical issue" in the sense of correcting an error or giving RESP0NSE: d o c u m e n t s Plaintiffs in a format that they night like better. As such, I cannot address to i t , except to say that it did not form a topic of oun meet and confeF sessions - I believe it m a y have been briefly referenced, but it was not discussed tn even a cursony manner. 15. Databases. I ' v e a d d r e s s e dh i s i n m y p n l o r e m a i l . t

R E S P O N S E : cannot addnessdisputes on this issue, except to say that it was not discussed I a s a "technical issue" at our meet and confers. Because(I belleve) little or no database p r o d u c t i o n had yet occurred, the topic arose only as sonething to work on together in the f u t u r e , and not somethingthat required an immediatetechnical fix. I included databasesin progness on technical lssues (lune 25 emall) for convenienceonly, i.e. so I n y update of w o u l d not have to send two separate emails to the samegroup of technical experts. 1 6 Production Key. Wedid thls as we agreed we would - on time. R E S P O N SAstrazenecahas no problem with the production key, E: A n d r e w5. Dupre, Esq. M c C a r t e r & English, LLP 4 0 5 Nonth King Street 8th Floor W i l m t n g t o n , Oelaware 19891 Phone: [phone] F a x : 302-984-031.1

T h i s email message from the law firm of McCanter& Engltsh, LLP is for the sole use of the i n t e n d e d recipient(s)and may contaln confidentiaL and privileged information. Any u n a u t h o n i z e dneview, use, disclosure or distnibution is prohibited. If you ace not the i n t e n d e d recipient, please contact the sender by reply email(or [e-mail]) and d e s t n o y all coples of the original message.

36