Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-LaRoche LTD et al

Filing 1302

Opposition/ Response by Amgen Inc. to #1257 Brief, Roche's Bench Memorandum to Preclude Amgen from Introducing Belatedly Produced Documents Relating to Its Experiments with Pegylation. (Rich, Patricia)

Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-LaRoche LTD et al

Doc. 1302

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 1302

Filed 10/04/2007

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) AMGEN INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) ) F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE ) LTD., a Swiss Company, ROCHE ) DIAGNOSTICS GmbH, a German ) Company and HOFFMANN LA ROCHE ) INC., a New Jersey Corporation, ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________)

Civil Action No.: 05-12237 WGY

AMGEN'S RESPONSE TO ROCHE'S BENCH MEMORANDUM TO PRECLUDE AMGEN FROM INTRODUCING BELATEDLY PRODUCED DOCUMENTS RELATING TO ITS EXPERIMENTS WITH PEGYLATION Roche's accusations of discovery misconduct are unfounded and unprofessional. Amgen fully complied with its discovery obligations, producing documents in its possession regarding the pegylation of EPO at Amgen and, when documents were generated after the fact discovery cut-off, supplementing its document production with those documents as well. The Federal Rules provide for the ongoing supplementation of relevant materials.1 Amgen fully complied with these rules to meet its ongoing discovery obligations. As Amgen became aware of additional relevant materials, it supplemented its production. Similarly, as additional relevant documents were created by Amgen relating to ongoing experimentation, it supplemented its production. Such supplementation is entirely proper. Amgen conducts a great deal of ongoing research, and Roche's suggestion that Amgen deliberately delayed certain experiments is baseless and unwarranted. Roche cites to an email

808257_1

1
Dockets.Justia.com

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 1302

Filed 10/04/2007

Page 2 of 4

from one of Amgen's scientists urging that work on a particular project proceed more quickly than was actually achieved, and somehow makes the illogical and unfounded leap to conclude that Amgen deliberately delayed the project because of this ongoing litigation. argument is pure fantasy. Finally, Roche's memorandum2 is also unnecessary because Amgen does not intend to rely at trial upon experiments related to NM 385, in documents Bates numbered AM44 20243752024517 and AM87 16859-16917.3 CONCLUSION Roche's memorandum to preclude Amgen is moot in light of the points raised above. Roche's

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e). See Roche's Bench Memorandum to Preclude Amgen from Introducing Belatedly Produced Documents Relating to its Experiments with Pegylation and COS-EPO as Untimely and Prejudicial (Docket No. 1257). 3 There is no dispute that evidence of earlier PEG-EPO experiments that were produced prior to fact discovery cut-off may be relied upon by Amgen at trial.
2

1

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 1302

Filed 10/04/2007

Page 3 of 4

Dated October 4, 2007 Respectfully Submitted, AMGEN INC., By its attorneys, ___/s/ Patricia R. Rich________________ D. DENNIS ALLEGRETTI (BBO#545511) MICHAEL R. GOTTFRIED (BBO#542156) PATRICIA R. RICH (BBO#640578) DUANE MORRIS LLP 470 Atlantic Avenue, Suite 500 Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] LLOYD R. DAY, JR. (pro hac vice) DAY CASEBEER MADRID & BATCHELDER LLP 20300 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Suite 400 Cupertino, CA 95014 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] WILLIAM GAEDE III (pro hac vice) McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY 3150 Porter Drive Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] KEVIN M. FLOWERS (pro hac vice) MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP 233 South Wacker Drive 6300 Sears Tower Chicago IL 60606 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone]

Of Counsel: STUART L. WATT WENDY A. WHITEFORD MONIQUE L. CORDRAY DARRELL G. DOTSON KIMBERLIN L. MORLEY ERICA S. OLSON AMGEN INC. One Amgen Center Drive Thousand Oaks, CA 91320-1789 [phone]

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 1302

Filed 10/04/2007

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that this document filed through the Electronic Case Filing (ECF) system will be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) and paper copies will be sent to those indicated as non registered participants on the above date. /s/ Patricia R. Rich Patricia R. Rich

808257_1

4