Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re (EpiPen Epinephrine Injection, USP) Marketing, Sales Practices and Antitrust Litigation

United States District Court, D. Kansas

December 14, 2018

IN RE: EpiPen (Epinephrine Injection, USP) Marketing, Sales Practices and Antitrust Litigation (This Document Applies to All Cases)

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          DANIEL D. CRABTREE JUDGE

         I. Background

         This court's Deposition Guidelines couldn't be clearer. They explicitly mandate that counsel cooperate with one another. They also mandate that counsel treat deponents and opposing counsel courteously. See Deposition Guidelines[1] (§ 1, “Cooperation”). Likewise, the Guidelines forbid long-winded objections that suggest answers or otherwise coach a witness. Id. at § 5(a). These Guidelines aren't aspirational, adopted to inspire the bar to aim higher and do better-though one hopes they will. To the contrary, the Guidelines augment our local rules and provide ground rules for an integral piece of the modern federal court lawsuit.

         Recently, the court learned that some counsel in this MDL proceeding have ignored the Guidelines. During one of the periodic Status Conferences, counsel provided several excerpts taken from an advance, rough draft of the transcript for defendant Heather Bresch's deposition. Ms. Bresch is Mylan's Chief Executive Officer. This sneak-peek wasn't flattering. Indeed, the conduct in the transcript excerpts concerned the court enough that it directed counsel to submit a full and final transcript of Ms. Bresch's deposition when available.

         Counsel complied, submitting a soft copy of Ms. Bresch's transcript with a letter signed by counsel for the Mylan line of defendants, the Pfizer defendants, and the putative Class Plaintiffs. The court has read the entire transcript and it confirms the court's preliminary concerns. Here is an example why:

3 Q. [CLASSCOUNSEL][2]You didn't even register for
4 classes in the summer or fall of 1998, did
5 you?
6 [MYLAN'SCOUNSEL]: [W]e're not
7 going to turn this into an examination
8 about the true [sic] or falsity of the
9 underlying West Virginia University
10 investigation.
11 You've asked her the question
12 whether she believes the report or
13 not, she gave you her response, and
14 I'm going to give you a short leash
15 here because we're not going to making
16 this sideshow about her West Virginia
17 executive MBA.
18 QUESTIONSBY[CLASSCOUNSEL]:
19 Q. Go ahead, ma'am. He's just --
20 [MYLAN'SCOUNSEL]: No, what he's doing
21 is he's making a very legit --
22 [CLASSCOUNSEL]: Do not interrupt
23 me . . . When I am talking, do not
24 interrupt me. I did not interrupt
25 you. I expect the same deference from 1 you.
2 [MYLAN'SCOUNSEL]: Two things.
3 [CLASSCOUNSEL]: Now, in that
4 regard, ma'am -- 5 [MYLAN'SCOUNSEL]: Hold on, let me 6 respond.
7 [CLASSCOUNSEL]: -- if he instructs
8 you not to answer, obviously you honor
9 his instructions. Otherwise, if you
10 can't keep track of my questions,
11 please ask me to repeat it.
12 If he's just trying to talk, it
13 doesn't mean anything to me, and I'll
14 just look to you to give answers to
15 the questions, please.
16 So can you answer my question?
17 [MYLAN'SCOUNSEL]: Let me give a
18 response before you answer the
19 question. So, first of all ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.