Simpson v. Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al
Filing
38
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 20 Motion for Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell on 4/11/13. (ejb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:11-cv-301
____________________________________
)
JESSICA T. SIMPSON,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
ORDER
)
AMYLIN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., )
TODD BILLINGSLEY,
)
DENISE PRINDIVILLE, and
)
CAROLINE ESPREE,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________
On March 11, 2013, the Court conducted a hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for
Discovery [# 20]. After a review of the entire record in this case, the relevant legal
authority, and after the benefit of oral argument, the Court entered an oral Order
grant in part and denying in part the Motion [# 20]. The Court directed counsel for
Plaintiff to prepare a proposed order consistent with the Court’s oral Order. The
Court has largely adopted the proposed order submitted by counsel for Plaintiff.
Consistent with the Court’s prior oral Order, the Court GRANTS in part and
DENIES in part the motion [# 20].
I.
Analysis
A.
Interrogatories
1
1.
Interrogatory No. 3: Defendant shall produce the laptop which
Plaintiff used during her employment by April 1, 2013, and which is currently in
the possession of Amylin. Plaintiff shall have one week in which to have a
forensics expert examine the laptop for any relevant documents. The parties shall
confer and submit a protective order stating that any information contained on the
laptop that is not related to the instant case may not be disclosed to any person, for
any reason.
2.
Interrogatory No. 7: Defendant’s objection to Interrogatory No. 7 is
sustained in part, and overruled in part. Defendant shall identify each and every
person who was employed from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2010, in
the positions of sales representative, sales specialist, senior sales representative,
district sales manager, regional sales manager, or in any other capacity as a
pharmaceutical sales representative in Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama,
Mississippi, Louisiana, and Florida. Defendant shall also provide the dates of
employment and job titles of such persons. For those persons who are no longer
employed, Defendant shall provide the reasons for their separation or termination,
and identify all documents relating to the separation or termination.
3.
Interrogatory No. 8: Defendant’s objection to Interrogatory No. 8 is
sustained in part, and overruled in part. Defendant shall identify each and every
2
person who was employed from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2010, in
the positions of sales representative, sales specialist, senior sales representative,
district sales manager, regional sales manager, or in any other capacity as a
pharmaceutical sales representative in Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama,
Mississippi, Louisiana, and Florida, who requested paid or unpaid leave from work
for a prenatal condition, pregnancy, or postpartum condition. For such persons,
Defendant shall state the reason for the requested leave from work; state whether it
granted or denied the leave request; state the reason for granting or denying the
leave request; identify all documents relating to such request for leave, and the
granting or denial of such request for leave.
4.
Interrogatory No. 9: Defendant’s objection to Interrogatory No.9 is
sustained in part, and overruled in part. Defendant shall identify each and every
person who was employed from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2010, in
the positions of sales representative, sales specialist, senior sales representative,
district sales manager, regional sales manager, or in any other capacity as a
pharmaceutical sales representative in Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama,
Mississippi, Louisiana, and Florida, who requested paid or unpaid leave from work
for any reason other than a vacation leave. For such persons, Defendant shall state
3
the reason for the requested leave from work; state whether the leave was granted
or denied; state the reason for granting or denying the leave request; and identify
all documents relating to such leave request, and the granting or denial of such
requests for leave.
5.
Interrogatory No. 10: Defendant’s objection to Interrogatory No. 10
is sustained in part, and overruled in part. Defendant shall identify each and every
person who was terminated from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2010,
from the positions of sales representative, sales specialist, senior sales
representative, district sales manager, regional sales manager, or in any other
capacity as a pharmaceutical sales representative in Maryland, District of
Columbia, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee,
Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Florida. For each such person,
Defendant shall state the job title of the person terminated; the reason(s) for the
person’s termination; whether any identified person was later re-employed;
whether each identified person requested paid or unpaid leave from work other
than vacation leave; and whether each person was granted, or denied, paid or
unpaid leave; and identify all documents relating to the same.
6.
Interrogatory Nos. 11 – 14: Defendant’s objections to Interrogatory
Nos. 11 – 14 are sustained in part, and overruled in part. Defendant shall identify
each and every person who was employed from January 1, 2006, through
4
December 31, 2010, in the positions of sales representative, sales specialist, senior
sales representative, district sales manager, regional sales manager, or in any other
capacity as a pharmaceutical sales representative in Maryland, District of
Columbia, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee,
Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Florida, who:
(a) was alleged to have made misrepresentations regarding his/her work
activities to a manger or supervisor, and for each person identified, Defendant shall
state whether any investigation, counseling, or disciplinary action was taken with
respect to the person, and if so, describe the investigation, counseling, or
disciplinary action, and identify all documents relating to such investigation,
counseling, or disciplinary action;
(b) was alleged to have entered duplicative and/or false sales call entries, and
for each person identified, Defendant shall state whether any investigation,
counseling, or disciplinary action was taken with respect the person, and if so,
describe the investigation, counseling, or disciplinary action, and identify all
documents relating to such investigation, counseling, or disciplinary action;
(c) who was alleged to have violated, or failed to comply with your policies,
practices, or guidances regarding interactions or communications with healthcare
professionals, and for each person identified, Defendant shall state each person’s
violation of the policies, practices, or guidances, and state whether any
5
investigation, counseling, or disciplinary action was taken with respect the person,
and if so, describe the investigation, counseling, or disciplinary action, and identify
all documents relating to such investigation, counseling, or disciplinary action; and
(d) who was alleged to have misrepresented the fact that he/she was
working during working time, when in fact, he/she was not engaged in work
activities, or was away from work, and for each person identified, Defendant shall
state whether any investigation, counseling, or disciplinary action was taken with
respect to the person, and if so, describe the investigation, counseling, or
disciplinary action; and identify all documents relating to such investigation,
counseling, or disciplinary action.
For all persons identified in response to the foregoing interrogatories,
Defendant shall provide the name, address(es), and telephone number(s) for each
identified person.
7.
Interrogatory No. 17: The parties represented that they have resolved
their dispute over interrogatory No. 17, and that Defendant will provide responsive
information. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion is denied with respect to Interrogatory
No. 17.
6
B.
Document Production Requests
1.
Production Request No. 3: Defendant’s objection to Production
Request No. 3 is overruled. Defendant shall produce a complete copy of the
personnel files, and all other files (including but not limited to any investigative
files, files related to job assignments given to such persons, filed related to such
persons’ work performance or conduct, but excluding files containing medical
information) that it maintained on Defendants Todd Billingsley, Denise Prindiville,
and Caroline Espree, and on Julie Judd.
2.
Production Request No. 23: Defendant’s objection to Production
Request No. 23 is sustained in part, and overruled in part. Defendant shall produce
documents relating to requests for paid or unpaid leave from work for a prenatal
condition, pregnancy, or postpartum condition, and documents showing whether
the leave was granted or denied, made by each and every person who was
employed from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2010, in the positions of
sales representative, sales specialist, senior sales representative, district sales
manager, regional sales manager, or in any other capacity as a pharmaceutical sales
representative in Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and
Florida. Defendant shall not be required to produce medical records for these
persons.
7
3.
Production Request No. 24: Defendant’s objection to request No. 24
is sustained in part, and overruled in part. Defendant shall produce records relating
to any counseling or disciplinary action(s) taken for any reason against each and
every person employed from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2010, in the
positions of sales representative, sales specialist, senior sales representative,
district sales manager, regional sales manager, or in any other capacity as a
pharmaceutical sales representative in Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama,
Mississippi, Louisiana, and Florida, who requested paid or unpaid leave from work
for a prenatal condition, pregnancy, or postpartum condition, and was granted or
denied the requested leave. Defendant shall not be required to produce medical
records for these persons.
4.
Production Request No. 25: Defendant’s objection to Production
Request No. 25 is sustained in part, and overruled in part. Defendant shall produce
documents relating to the circumstances under which paid or unpaid leave, other
than vacation leave, was requested by against each and every person employed
from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2010, in the positions of sales
representative, sales specialist, senior sales representative, district sales manager,
regional sales manager, or in any other capacity as a pharmaceutical sales
representative in Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia, North Carolina, South
8
Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and
Florida, and documents showing whether such leave request was granted or denied.
5.
Production Request No. 26: Defendant’s objection to Production
Request No. 26 is sustained in part, and overruled in part. Defendant shall produce
documents relating to any counseling or disciplinary action(s) taken against each
and every person employed from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2010, in
the positions of sales representative, sales specialist, senior sales representative,
district sales manager, regional sales manager, or in any other capacity as a
pharmaceutical sales representative in Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama,
Mississippi, Louisiana, and Florida, who requested paid or unpaid leave from work
for any reason other than vacation leave, and was granted or denied the requested
leave.
6.
Production Request Nos. 27 – 28 and 30 – 31: Defendant’s objections
to Production Request Nos. 27 – 28 and 30 – 31 are sustained in part, and
overruled in part. Defendant shall be required to produce documents relating the
circumstances under which each and every person who was employed from
January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2010, in the positions of sales
representative, sales specialist, senior sales representative, district sales manager,
regional sales manager, or in any other capacity as a pharmaceutical sales
9
representative in Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and
Florida:
(a) was alleged to have made misrepresentations regarding his/her activities
during working time to a manger or supervisor, or engaged in personal, non-work
activities during working time, and for each person identified, any records relating
to any investigation, counseling, or disciplinary action was taken with respect to
such persons;
(b) who was alleged to have entered duplicative and/or false sales call
entries, or made misrepresentations about their sales activities, or made
misrepresentations about their activities during working time, and for each person
identified, any records relating to any investigation, counseling, or disciplinary
action was taken with respect the person;
(c) who was alleged to have made misrepresentations about their about their
activities during working time, including but not limited to misrepresentations
about working full days in their territories, and for each person identified, any
records relating to any investigation, counseling, or disciplinary action was taken
with respect to the person; and
10
(d) who was alleged to have violated, or failed to comply with its policies,
practices, or guidances regarding interactions or communications with healthcare
professionals, and for each person identified, any records relating to any
investigation, counseling, or disciplinary action taken with respect the person.
7.
Production Request No. 32: Defendant’s objection to Production
Request No. 32 is sustained in part, and overruled in part. Defendant is ordered to
produce Lighthouse records maintained for each and every person employed from
January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2010, in the positions of sales
representative, sales specialist, senior sales representative, district sales manager,
regional sales manager, or in any other capacity as a pharmaceutical sales
representative in Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and
Florida, who was accused of falsifying Lighthouse records or falsifying visits with
physicians during that period.
8.
Production Request No. 33: Defendant’s objection to Production
Request No. 33 is overruled. Defendant shall produce all documents relating to
any formal or informal oral, written, or electronic complaints or criticisms made to
Defendant about Todd Billingsley, by any former or current employees from
January 1, 2005, through the present.
11
9.
Production Request No. 34: Defendant’s objection to Production
Request No. 34 is overruled. Defendant shall produce all documents relating to
any surveys that it conduct of Defendant Todd Billingsley among its employees at
any time.
10.
Production Request No. 35: Defendant’s objection to Production
Request No. 35 is overruled. Defendant shall produce all documents showing the
job duties and requirements expected of Defendant Todd Billingsley and other
district sales managers, in the launch of its pharmaceutical product called
“Exenatide Once Weekly” in or about July 2010.
11.
Production Request No. 36: Defendant’s objection to Production
Request No. 36 is overruled. Defendant shall produce all documents showing the
job duties and requirements expected of Plaintiff and other sales representatives in
the launch of its pharmaceutical product called “Exenatide Once Weekly” in or
about July 2010.
12.
Production Request No. 39: Defendant’s objection to Production
Request No. 39 is overruled. Defendant shall produce all documents relating to
policies and procedures by which Defendant Todd Billingsley was evaluated for
his job performance over the term of his employment with Defendant, and all
documents relating to the results of the evaluations.
12
13.
Production Request Nos. 40 and 41: Defendant’s objections to
Production Request Nos. 40 and 41 are sustained in part, and overruled in part.
Defendant shall produce the complete personnel files on any individual that
Defendant Todd Billingsley caused, in whole or in part, to be terminated over his
employment with Defendant. Defendant shall not be required to produce any
medical files on such individuals.
14.
Production Request No. 42: Defendant’s objection to Production
Request No. 42 is overruled. Defendant shall produce all documents relating to the
recruitment and selection of the person(s) who replaced Plaintiff, following her
termination from employment.
15.
Production Request No. 43: Defendant’s objection to Production
Request No. 43 is overruled. Defendant shall produce the personnel files, and all
other files (including but not limited to files related to job assignments, work
performance or conduct, compensation or benefits) that it maintained on the
person(s) who replaced Plaintiff, following her termination from employment.
16.
Production Request No. 49: Defendant’s objection to Production
Request No. 49 is sustained in part, and overruled in part. Defendant shall produce
for each and every person employed from January 1, 2006, through December 31,
2010, in the positions of sales representative, sales specialist, senior sales
13
representative, district sales manager, regional sales manager, or in any other
capacity as a pharmaceutical sales representative, any documents showing the
reassignment or realignment of such persons in Defendant’s Asheville and/or
Hickory, North Carolina geographic sales areas.
17.
Production Request Nos. 55, 56, 57, and 61: Defendant’s objections
to Production Request Nos. 55, 56, 56, and 61 are sustained.
18.
Production Request No. 58: Defendant’s objection to Production
Request No. 58 is overruled. Defendant shall products documents showing the
sales of its products to Asheville Endocrinology and Mountain Diabetes in
Asheville, North Carolina since January 1, 2005.
19.
Production Request No. 59: Defendant’s objection to Production
Request No. 59 is overruled. Defendant shall produce documents showing the
sales of its products in the Asheville territory since January 1, 2005.
20.
Production Request No. 60: Defendant’s objection to Production
Request No. 60 is overruled. Defendant shall produce documents showing the
sales of its products in the Hickory territory since January 1, 2005.
21.
Production Request No. 63: Defendant’s objection to Production
request No. 63 is sustained in part, and overruled in part. Defendant shall produce
documents relating to oral or electronic communications, or documents relating to
meetings, between representatives of Defendant and representatives of Eli Lilly &
14
Company that concern Plaintiff, or are about Plaintiff, from January 1, 2009
through February 2, 2010.
22.
Production Request No. 64: Defendant’s objection to Production
Request No. 64 is sustained.
23.
Production Request No. 66: Defendant’s objection to Production
Request No. 66 is sustained.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: April 11, 2013
15
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?