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

Filing 450

DECLARATION re #447 MOTION to Strike Roche's Non-Infringement, Invalidity, and Inequitable Conduct Allegations Disclosed after the Close of Fact Discovery or, in the Alternative, Motion for Leave to Supplement Amgen's Expert Reports and Motion for Protective OF MARIO MOORE by Amgen Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1#2 Exhibit 2#3 Exhibit 3#4 Exhibit 4-10 (cover page only) submitted for in camera review#5 Errata 11#6 Exhibit 12#7 Exhibit 13#8 Exhibit 14#9 Exhibit 15)(Gottfried, Michael)

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

Doc. 450 Att. 8

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 450-9

Filed 05/24/2007

Page 1 of 3

EXHIBIT 14

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 450-9

Filed 05/24/2007

Page 2 of 3

DAY CASEBEER MADRID & BATCHELDER ALP

20300 Stevens Creek Blvd., Suite 400 Cupertino, CA 95014 Telephone : [phone] Facsimile : [phone]

Mario Moore [phone] mmoore@ daycasebeer.com

May

10, 2007

VIA E-MAIL & FACSIMILE Thomas F . Fleming Kaye Scholer LLP 425 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022-3598 Re : Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffman-LaRoche Ltd ., et aL (05-CV-12237 WGY)

Dear Tom: I write to address certain points made in your May 4 letter to Deborah Fishman and to address the Second Supplemental Expert Report of John Lowe received on the night of Monday, May 8. We are trying to understand Roche's basis for contending that it was "appropriate and proper" for Roche to submit six supplemental expert reports after the April 6 deadline set out under the scheduling order . Please cite the specific language in the Court's orders and explain how it provides Roche a basis to produce each of the six supplemental reports four and a half weeks after the April 6 expert report deadline. We are also trying to understand what basis Roche has for submitting supplemental responses to interrogatories other than Interrogatory Nos . 9-11 after the April 2 close of fact discovery. Please cite the specific language in the Court's orders that Roche relies on as the basis for submitting its supplemental response to interrogatory no . 26 on May 1, nearly a month after the close of discovery . By what dates must Roche's responses to all interrogatories other than Interrogatory Nos . 9-11 be completed? Has Roche completed its supplementation of interrogatory responses based upon discovery produced to date? Your May 4 letter suggests that Amgen has continued to produce discovery relevant to Roche's expert reports and interrogatory responses . Please identify each item of newly produced evidence in each supplemental expert report submitted in May and explain how it is that the same evidence could not have been included in the relevant April 6 Roche expert report .

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY Document 450-9 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 3 of 3

DAY CASEBEER MADRID & BATCHELDER LLP

Thomas F. Fleming May 10, 2007 Page 2

We look forward to your response. Very truly yours,
DAY CASEBEER MADRID & BATCHELDER LLP

Mario Moore MM :jmp cc :

//L, G

AG

Peter Fratangelo Michele E . Moreland Mark Israelewicz