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

Filing 826

MOTION in Limine No. 2: Exclude Reference to Allegations Against Amgen's Witness Made in Unrelated Securities Litigation by Amgen Inc..(Gottfried, Michael)

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

Doc. 826

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

Civil Action No. 05 CV 12237 WGY

PLAINTIFF AMGEN'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2: EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO ALLEGATIONS AGAINST AMGEN'S WITNESS MADE IN UNRELATED SECURITIES LITIGATIONS Pursuant to FRE 402, 403, and 608(b), Plaintiff Amgen Inc. ("Amgen") requests that this Court preclude Defendants F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Roche Diagnostics GmbH, and Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. (collectively "Roche") from referring to any of several recent securities litigations filed against Amgen and also naming its senior executives, including its Executive Vice President Mr. Dennis Fenton, as a basis for impeaching or discrediting his testimony. The securities litigations are irrelevant to this patent infringement case. Because there have been no judgments in these securities litigations, they involve only allegations against Amgen or Mr. Fenton. Mere allegations are not admissible to discredit a witness. To allow the jury to hear evidence of these allegations against Amgen and Mr. Fenton would be unfairly prejudicial to Amgen because the jury may not understand that mere allegations are not probative of anything. The Court should therefore exclude this

Dockets.Justia.com

evidence under FRE 402, 403, and 608(b) because it is irrelevant, inadmissible character evidence, and because any probative value the evidence may have is outweighed by its likelihood to confuse or mislead the jury and unfairly prejudice Amgen. Amgen requests that this Court preclude Roche from referring to any of the several securities litigations filed against Amgen as irrelevant under FRE 402, substantially confusing and prejudicial under FRE 403, and inadmissible character evidence under FRE 608(b). In support of this motion, Amgen submits a brief.

2

Respectfully Submitted, Date: August 17, 2007 AMGEN INC., By its attorneys, /s/ Michael R. Gottfried 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]

3

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 7.1 I certify that counsel for the parties have conferred in an attempt to resolve or narrow the issues presented by this motion and no agreement was reached. /s/ Michael R. Gottfried Michael R. Gottfried

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 nonregistered participants, on the above date. /s/ Michael R. Gottfried Michael R. Gottfried