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 3 6:06md01769ACCDAB In Re: Seroquel Products Liability Litigation Date Identified: Date Admitted:

Exhibit 16.13

Jaffe,Jonathan
From: Sent: To; Cc:
P e n n o c kPaul , W e d n e s d aJuly11,2007 y, 5:49PM ' M c C o n n e lStephen' l, ([e-mail]); ([e-mail]); J. Fletch Trammell Lawrence Gornick ([e-mail]); Scott Allen Kenneth Bailey C a m pBailey([e-mail]); ([e-mail]); ([e-mail]); Pederson, Mike; EdwardBlizzard Jaffe, Jonathan RE:Meet-and-confer sanctions re motion

Subject:

IND/NDA that remaln. Y o u r statement is incornect. Plalntiffs counsel are aware of pnoblems phone could not delineate them, Just as, for example, none of the P l a i n t i f f s counsel on the s e v e r a l defense lawyers on the phone could tell us if the "key term" search fon a panticular w o n dwould pick up a partial spelling of the word. Collectively, none of you knew. O r g Chants o u r positions have been madeclear in numenous as discussions, depositions and demands, well a s youn commitments. C u s t o d i a l Pnoductions in A g a i n , your statements are incornect and are emblematicof the mannen which AZ and lts c o u n s e l have dealt with discovery. We said that defendants' counsel should have looked t h r o u g h all of the documents else on youn side, that each custodian had. Munno,oF someone in m a d enefenenceto looking through all of the documents the company. Wehad been led to fon each b e l i e v e , and so has the Court, that you did look thnough all of the documents for c u s t o d l a n . onsidering the fact that manyof the custodians only worked on Senoque1 y e a r s , the "non" Seroquel documents would be few and far between. In any event, you have m i s l e a d us and the Court and have produceda set of documents that by definition is incomplete. Databases Y o u r characterizatlon of the lengthy discussion is incomplete and thus inaccurate. In any e v e n t , we continue to await your production of the databasesthat contain discoverable and i n f o n m a t i o n in this litigation, as has been formally demanded then dtscussed, ad nauseum, f o r months. You said that the databasesaFe not ready to be pnoduced,and we pointed out t h a t given the fact that they have been discussed for months, they should have been prepared f o r pnoduction a long time ago. T h e r e was a great deal more said and discussed. Youp "ReadersDigest" vension, requiring a s i m i l a n rep1y, is not helpful .

-----Original Hessage----F r o m : M c C o n n e l l ,S t e p h e nI m a i l t o : s t e p h e n . m c c o n n e l l @ d e c h e n t . c o m ] S e n t : W e d n e s d a y ,u l y t t , Z O v T5 1 1 6 P M J T o : P e n n o c k ,P a u l C c : Munno,Thomas;Magaziner, Fred; Kenns, Kevin; Balakhani, Elizabeth; Jim Freebeny; Adupre@nccanter. com S u b j e c t : Meet-and-conferre sanctions motion

Pau1, I n today's call, we went oven the issues raised in your sanctions motion.

IND-NDA that plaintiffs do not counsel is not curnently awaneof any IND-NDA documents Plaintiffs' a l r e a d y have. I understandthat you will contact your NDAreview team and alert us 1f they k n o wof any missing documents. (Wedo not believe there are any). O r g a n i z a t i o n Chants afso D e f e n d a n t sproducedorganization charts in January and at the 30(b)(5) depositions. t.'|e set of 76 document requests. a g r e e d to producedadditional chants in responseto youn amended primary objection is that, although you received several additional chants during Plaintiffs' d e p o s i t i o n s , and have nequestedothers through RFP5,you did not receive every company o n g a n i z a t i o n chant in January. I am not sure how we can address that complaint -- which we d i s a g n e e is what the Judge ondered -- but please let us know if thene is somethingmore you seek. C u s t o d i a l pnoduction Y o u r sanctions motion contends that our search terms were incomplete. Defendantsrequested counsel said that "we'd never t h a t plaintiffs provide additional seanchtenms. Plaintiffs' list, " but agreed to consider providing a list of b e able to comeup with a comprehensive a d d i t i o n a l search terms. At the sametime, you suggestedthat nothing less than having d e f e n s e lawyers nead all of the company'sdocuments would satisfy you. Databases P l a i n t i f f s request immediatepFoduction of all 59 databasesthey identified (someo'F those a r e not actually databases). Defendantsprovided intenviews, depositions, and additional and not reasonably i n f o r n a t i o n regarding databases. Some those databasesare enormous of s e a r c h a b l e . Nonetheless, Defendantsane already producing materials from databasesin r e s p o n s eto certain subject matter documentrequests. while yours are extreme. But we remain willing W e believe that our positions are neasonable t o discuss these issues with you right up to the heaning befone Judge Baker. - Steve T h i s e-mail is from Dechert LLP, a law firm, and may contain information that is confidential o r pnivileged. If you are not the intended recipient, do not nead, copy or distribute the em a i l or any attachnents. fnstead, please notify the sender and delete the e-mall and any a t t a c h m e n t s .T h a n ky o u .

16