Pharmacia Corporation Supplemental Pension Plan et al v. Weldon, M.D.

Filing 49

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants motion to compel 38 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth above, and plaintiffs' must supplement their discovery responses as set forth above no later than March 20, 2015. (See Full Order). Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 3/2/2015. (EAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
PHARMACIA CORPORATION
SUPPLEMENTAL PENSION PLAN,
BY AND THROUGH ITS PLAN
ADMINISTRATOR, and PFIZER INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
VIRGINIA V. WELDON, M.D.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:14CV1498 CDP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before me on defendant Virgina V. Weldon’s motion to
compel discovery from plaintiffs Pharmacia Corporation Supplemental Pension
Plan and Pfizer Inc. On February 27, 2015, a hearing was held on this motion at
which counsel for all parties was present. After careful consideration, I will grant
Weldon’s motion in part and deny it in part as set forth below.
DISCUSSION
Weldon’s original motion sought to compel responses to nearly all of her
document requests and more than half of her interrogatories. I ordered that parties
to meet and confer before the hearing and attempt to resolve their disoputes. At
the hearing, counsel represented to the Court that disputes remained outstanding

-1-

only for interrogatory nos. 1, 2 (subparts d-f), 4, and 5, and request nos.6, 7, 8, 9,
10, and 14.
I am denying or narrowing the scope of many of defendant’s requests
because this is expedited discovery for purposes of a preliminary injunction
hearing. But to the extent I have done this, I am not ruling that defendants may
never obtain the documents or answers they are requesting. Defendant should
consider whether the requests should be rephrased or whether the information
would be better obtained through different discovery means, and plaintiffs should
consider whether they should, in good faith, continue to refuse to produce all of
this information.
A.

Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 4 and Document Request Nos. 9 and 14
Defendants’ motion to compel responses to interrogatory nos. 1 and 4 and

document request nos. 9 and 14 is denied at this time, without prejudice to be reraised after the preliminary injunction hearing, if necessary.
B.

Interrogatory No. 2(d)-(f) and Document Request No. 10.
Defendant’s motion to compel a response to interrogatory no. 2(d)-(f) is

granted in part. Plaintiffs must provide a response to these subsections, which are
hereby rewritten as follows:
Plaintiff must answer (d) when and how Lisa Marie Misertino learned
of the results of the “recent pension disbursement audit,” (e) whether
anyone at the Plan or Pfizer, other than her, authorized or approved
the sending of the September 23, 2009 letter; and (f) the name and job
-2-

title of anyone at the Plan or Pfizer who was involved in any way in
the decision to send the September 23, 2009 letter.
In response to request for production No. 10, Plaintiffs must produce
documents sufficient to show who sent the letter to Ms. Misertino and any
drafts prepared by that person or others working with that person or working
with Ms. Misertino regarding sending the letter. If any person working on or
involved in any way with the letter made any notations in any records
regarding the letter, they must also be produced.
C.

Interrogatory No. 5 and Document Request No. 6
The circumstances surrounding the misinformation given to Weldon during

the February 10, 2006, phone call are relevant to the issues in this case. Therefore,
I am granting defendant’s motion to compel responses to interrogatory no. 5 and
document request no. 6 to the following extent: Plaintiffs must either answer the
interrogatory or produce documents sufficient to show the substance of any
internal conversations between, or notations made by, Fidelity employees that
occurred or that were made around the time of the February 10, 2006 call and that
relate to the content or existence of the call.
D.

Document Request Nos. 7 and 8
Defendant’s motion to compel responses to document request nos. 7 and 8 is

granted as follows: plaintiffs must produce Fidelity’s audit file related to the

-3-

pension disbursement audit that was mentioned in the September 23, 2009 letter
from hrSource to Weldon.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s motion to compel [#38] is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth above, and plaintiffs’ must
supplement their discovery responses as set forth above no later than March 20,
2015.

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this 2nd day of March, 2015.

-4-