Miller v. Alza Corporation et al

Filing 17

RESPONSE TO STATUS REPORT. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 6/2/2010. (kpf1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
WILLIAM MILLER, Plaintiff, -vs: ALZA CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. : Case No. 3:08-cv-402 District Judge Timothy S. Black Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

RESPONSE TO STATUS REPORT

On May 12, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed a Status Inquiry in this case (Doc. No. 15). Attorneys Tariq Naeem and Eric Pearson have jointly responded by letter, which is attached. Counsel will have noted that since the Status Inquiry this case has been reassigned to newlyappointed District Judge Timothy S. Black pursuant to a random reassignment of cases among the District Judges being assigned civil cases in Dayton. In fact, Judge Black has already entered a Notice of Hearing in the case. While counsels' letter appropriately responds to the inquiries made by the Magistrate Judge and while this case remains referred to Magistrate Judge Merz pending the discovery cut-off, the parties are cautioned that Judge Black's priorities for case management may differ from Judge Rose's. In particular, counsel should not assume court acquiescence in negotiated changes in the schedule, but should present those to the Court for consideration as promptly as is needed for the effective management of the case. June 2, 2010.
s/ Michael R. Merz United States Magistrate Judge
1

~~~~

~~I~

TUCKER ELLIS & WEST LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1150 Huntington Bldg. 925 Euclid Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44115-1414

phone [phone] facsimile 216.592.5009 tuckerellis.com

CLEVELAND COLUMßUS DENVER LOS ANGELES SAN FRANCISCO

Direct Dial: 216.696.3675
Email: tariq.naeemcgtuckerellis.com

June 1, 2010

VIA E-MAL
merz _ chambers(âohsd.uscourts.gov

Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz Federal Building, Room 505 200 West Second Street Dayton, Ohio 45402

Re: Willam Miller, etc. vs. ALZA Corporation, et aL. USDC, Southern District of Ohio, Western Division Case No. 3:08 CV 0402
Judge Merz:

In response to this Cour's May 12, 2010 Status Inquiry, counsel for the parties have
conferred by telephone to discuss the status of this case and their response to the specific questions raised in the Court's Inquiry. The following constitutes the parties' joint response.
As this Court is aware, this case is one of many pending across the country against

Defendants related to their fentanyl pain patch. The law firm of Heygood, Orr & Pearson,
counsel for Plaintiff in this case, is also representing a number of plaintiffs in those other cases. Thus, the parties have agreed that much of the product-related discovery conducted in the prior cases wil be available for use in this case, including documents produced by Defendants in those
prior cases, thereby streamlining the amount of discovery needed to prepare this case for triaL.

The parties do anticipate submitting a Stipulated Protective Order for the Court's consideration, as part of their agreement to use documents produced by Defendants in prior cases, and they
believe they can do so by the end of this week. In addition, most case-specific factual discovery

has been completed, including written discovery, collection of decedent's medical records, and depositions of witnesses.

The parties do not anticipate requesting any extensions to the case management dates entered by Judge Rose on April 21, 2009. While Plaintiff did not submit his expert disclosures

~.;..'.; ~'..' ~.'l...' ~.t.':.:.d.

~r%l~

TUCKER ELLIS & WEST LLP
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz
June 1, 2010
Page 2

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

until April 22, 2010, he did so with the consent of Defendants. The parties are in the process of scheduling the depositions of Plaintiff s experts, and Defendants wil be identifying their experts by June 22, 2010. By agreement, and with the consent of the Court, the parties may need to continue deposing experts past the current June 21, 2010 deadline for completion of case-specific discovery. Again, however, the parties do not expect that this extension will affect the current trial date scheduled for February 28, 201 1.

The parties hope that this response answers all of your questions regarding the status of
this case. If you have any further questions, counsel for the parties would be available for a

telephone conference at this Court's convenience.
Respectfully submitted,

,. r

. lO,(Â aN~
Tariq M. Naeem Counsel for Defendants

Eric D. Pearson Counsel for Plaintiff
TMN/nkg

030180.002455\1135592.1- TMN

Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz June 1,2010
Page 2

Defendants. The paries are in the process of scheduling the depositions ofPlaintifts experts, and Defendants wil be identifying their expers by June 22, 2010. By agreement, and with the consent of the Cour, the paries may need to continue deposing experts past the current June 21,2010 deadline for completion of case-specific discovery. Again, however, the paries do not expect that this extension wil affect the current trial date scheduled for Februar 28, 2011.
until April 22, 2010, he did so with the consent of

The paries hope that this response answers all of your questions regarding the status of
thi case. If you have any fuher questions, counel for the paries would be available for a

telephone conference at this Cour's convenience.
Respectfully submitted,

Tarq M. Naeem Counel for Defendants

~D:pe ~
Counsel for Plaintiff
TMN/nkg

030180.002455\1

135592.l-TMN