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

Filing 277

DECLARATION re #275 MOTION to Determine the Sufficiency of Roche's Responses to Amgen's Requests for Admission of Krista M. Carter by Amgen Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Confidential Exhibits Coversheet#2 Exhibit 1#3 Exhibit 3#4 Exhibit 4#5 Exhibit 5#6 Exhibit 6#7 Exhibit 7#8 Exhibit 8#9 Exhibit 12)(Gottfried, Michael)

Download PDF
Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-LaRoche LTD et al Doc. 277 Att. 5 Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY Document 277-6 Filed 02/13/2007 Page 1 of 3 EXHIBIT 5 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY Document 277-6 Filed 02/13/2007 Page 2 of 3 DAY CASEBEER MADRID & BATCHELDER LLP 20300 Stevens Creek Blvd ., Suite 400 Cupertino, CA 95014 Telephone : (408) 873-0110 Facsimile : (408) 873-0220 Krista M. Carter (408) 342-4534 kcarter@daycasebeer.com January 18, 2007 VIA EMAIL & FACSIMILE Patricia A . Carson, Esq. Kaye Scholer LLP 425 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022-3598 Re : Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., et al. (05-CV-12237WGY) Dear Pat: I write in response to your letter dated January 16 . We view your demand for an additional 30 days to respond to Amgen's Requests for Admission as both unnecessary and unreasonable . You have had Amgen's Requests for Admission since November 17, 2006 . You agreed to supplement your responses once Amgen supplied definitions for certain terms that you contended were claim terms that required definition . Amgen supplied those definitions in the form of its Interrogatory Responses, which you have had since January 9 . Please let us know by the end of the day tomorrow, January 19, whether you will agree to supplement your responses to Amgen's Requests for Admission and, if so, please identify with particularity those Requests for Admission that you will agree to supplement. If Roche is willing to supplement its responses in light of Amgen's supplied constructions for various claim terms, consistent with your previous representation, I am available to discuss with you a reasonable schedule for such supplementation . In light of the two months Roche has already had to respond to Amgen's Requests for Admission coupled with Amgen meeting and conferring for the past month or more to provide on-going clarification and even additional extensions to Roche, postponing your supplementation by another 30 days appears to be an unnecessary delay tactic . Assuming that any agreement by Roche to supplement its Responses to Amgen's Requests for Admission is in good faith, I am certain that we can reach mutual agreement on a prompt schedule for such supplementation . Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY Document 277-6 Filed 02/13/2007 Page 3 of 3 DAY CASEBEER MADRID & BATCHELDER LLP Patricia A . Carson January 18, 2007 Page 2 I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, DAY CASEBEER MADRID & BATCHELDER LLP tc) Oco .tul Krista M. Carter KMC :par cc : Howard Suh Thomas F. Fleming Michele Moreland Mark Izraelewicz

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?