Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04980/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04980-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Account Receivable

---

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

------------------------------------------------------------ X 

IN RE YASMIN AND YAZ (DROSPIRENONE) 

MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND 

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION 

------------------------------------------------------------ 

Susan Galinis, et al. v. Bayer Corporation, et 

al. No. 3:09-cv-20079-DRH-PMF

3:09-md-02100-DRH-PMF 

MDL No. 2100 

Judge David R. Herndon 

HERNDON, District Judge: 

ORDER 

INTRODUCTION 

This matter is before the Court on the plaintiffs’ motion to compel Bayer to 

produce witnesses for deposition and to respond to discovery (Doc. 24, Doc. 25). 

Specifically, plaintiffs seek to compel the depositions of Bayer’s employees under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) regarding Bayer’s communication with 

Mrs. Galinis’ treating healthcare organization. Plaintiffs also seek to compel 

responses to their Requests for Admissions (Sets 1-3) and Special Interrogatory 

No. 5, or, in the alternative, to have the matters in the requests for admissions 

deemed admitted. If the requested discovery is found not to be case-specific and 

is therefore denied in accord with CMO 83, plaintiffs seek leave to conduct the 

discovery. Based on the record and on the limitations established under CMO 83, 

the Court ORDERS as follows: 

Case 3:09-cv-04980-SI Document 30 Filed 09/29/16 Page 1 of 8
2 

BACKGROUND 

A. The Instant Action 

The plaintiff, Susan Galinis, was prescribed, dispensed and ingested 

Yasmin in April 2008 for the off-label treatment of her endometriosis. The 

prescribing physician was Mary Co-Asino M.D., a Kaiser Permanente Fremont 

doctor. Shortly thereafter, Mrs. Galinis suffered an acute stroke, requiring 

surgical intervention and removal of a portion of her skull to accommodate severe 

swelling. Mrs. Galinis was a patient of Kaiser Permanente, an integrated managed 

care consortium. Kaiser Permanente does not permit pharmaceutical companies 

to make direct contact with its physicians. Mrs. Galinis contends (1) Bayer 

strategically marketed Yasmin to Kaiser Permanente with intentions of reaching 

Kaiser physicians; (2) Bayer’s marketing of Yasmin to Kaiser included several offlabel uses; and (3) this Kaiser Permanente-specific marketing strategy goes 

directly to her claims pertaining to causation and the overpromotion of Yasmin 

for off-label use. 

B. Prior Discovery and CMO 83 

This multidistrict litigation was created in the fall of 2009. The litigation 

quickly ballooned to include thousands of cases. At its height, this multidistrict 

litigation included nearly 12,000 files with multiple plaintiffs per file and was 

declared the largest multidistrict litigation in the nation. By February 2015, after 

more than five years of litigation, thousands of cases had been resolved, reducing 

Case 3:09-cv-04980-SI Document 30 Filed 09/29/16 Page 2 of 8
3 

the number of pending files from nearly 12,000 to approximately 3,400 (MDL 

2100 Doc. 3634 p. 1). 

On February 13, 2015, the Court entered CMO 70 announcing the Court’s 

plan for addressing the remaining unresolved cases (MDL 2100 Doc. 3634). CMO 

70 provided that generic fact discovery would close in April 2015. Id. When 

generic fact discovery drew to a close in April 2015, Bayer had produced more 

than 120 million pages of documents and Bayer witnesses had sat for 170 days of 

deposition testimony. This exhaustive discovery included production of 

documents and witnesses addressing Bayer’s preclinical, clinical, and postmarketing development programs for Yasmin and YAZ; regulatory matters related 

to Yasmin and YAZ; Bayer’s sales and marketing of Yasmin and YAZ; and Bayer’s 

drug safety programs and adverse event reporting related to Yasmin and YAZ. 

On August 3, 2015, the parties announced a settlement program for arterial 

thromboembolism (“ATE”) (MDL 2100 Doc. 3786). Plaintiffs who elected not to 

participate in or who were not eligible to participate in the ATE settlement 

program were subject to CMOs 78 or 79 and, eventually, non-participating 

plaintiffs with unresolved actions became subject to CMO 83. CMO 83 was 

entered with the purpose of establishing a schedule for the efficient progress of 

remaining cases that would be prepared for trial. CMO 83 allowed for certain 

case-specific fact discovery. However, in light of the extensive generic discovery 

that had already taken place, CMO 83 limited additional discovery efforts to the 

case-specific discovery identified in CMO 83, absent prior leave of court. 

Case 3:09-cv-04980-SI Document 30 Filed 09/29/16 Page 3 of 8
4 

ANALYSIS 

A. Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice 

Plaintiffs seek an order compelling deposition testimony from Bayer on ten 

topics related to its sales and marketing practice specific to Kaiser Permanente 

Fremont (Doc. 27-1). The Court finds that the subject Rule 30(b)(6) topics 

duplicate previous depositions. As outlined in Bayer’s briefing, California 

plaintiffs’ counsel previously deposed Kevin Kramer, the former Kaiser account 

director.1

 Mr. Kramer was deposed for two days in 2011 regarding the same 

topics that are the subject of the present Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice. The 

minor issues raised by the plaintiffs regarding Mr. Kramer’s deposition testimony 

do not warrant another deposition on the same topics. The plaintiffs’ deposition 

topics were also covered during the 30(b)(6) deposition of Bayer employee Rusty 

Thomas for a full day in 2010 (in addition to three days of individual testimony). 

Finally, the plaintiffs recently served a subpoena on a former Bayer employee who 

worked on the Kaiser account (Doc. 27-7). 

 Considering the prior testimony already available to the plaintiffs’ and the 

upcoming deposition of the former Bayer employee who worked on the Kaiser 

account, the Court finds that another deposition on the disputed topics would be 

cumulative. 

Accordingly, the Court will deny the plaintiffs’ motion to compel the 

deposition of a 30(b)(6) designee regarding these topics. 

 

1

 Mr. Kramer testified that he was “responsible as a single point of contact for management of the 

entire account.” Doc. 27 p. 5. 

Case 3:09-cv-04980-SI Document 30 Filed 09/29/16 Page 4 of 8
5 

B. Requests for Admission 

Plaintiffs served 74 requests for admission on Bayer. The Court has 

reviewed each request and finds as follows: 

Requests 1 through 61 

The Court finds that requests 1 through 61 cover generic topics. Consider 

the following examples, taken from requests 1 through 61: 

x Yasmin is not indicated for treatment of premenstrual syndrome, 

premenstrual dysphoric disorder, acne or weight gain. 

x The FDA required BAYER to report all SERIOUS ADVERSE EVENTs 

while the NDA review was underway. 

x By 2004 BAYER knew that Yasmin was associated with an increased 

thromboembolic risk. 

x In 2008 BAYER failed to disclose to physicians data BAYER knew 

from of the Lidegaard manuscript about Yasmin’s increased venous 

thromboembolic risk. 

x Yasmin is the first oral contraceptive with drospirenone (“DRSP”) 

approved by the FDA. 

The Court agrees with Bayer, the above examples and the other requests in 

this group cover quintessentially generic topics. The plaintiffs had an opportunity 

to pursue these topics earlier in this litigation. Moreover, these topics were the 

subjective of exhaustive discovery prior to the close of generic fact discovery. 

Accordingly, these requests are duplicative, untimely and outside the scope of the 

case-specific discovery permitted by CMO 83. 

 The motion to compel answers to requests 1 through 61 is DENIED. 

Case 3:09-cv-04980-SI Document 30 Filed 09/29/16 Page 5 of 8
6 

Requests 62 and 67 

 Although these requests appear to relate to Kaiser, they are generic 

questions of law. Moreover, these requests are improper as they go to ultimate 

issues in the case and seek legal conclusions. Requests to admit may not be used 

to establish legal conclusions. See Abdulqader v. United States, 596 Fed.Appx. 

515, 516 (7th Cir. March 20, 2015) (“ Rule 36 does not encompass demands...for 

legal conclusions.”); Perez v. Miami-Dade County, 297 F.3d 1255, 1260 n. 12 

(11th Cir. 2002) (requests for admissions that improperly call for a legal 

conclusion were properly stricken). 

 Accordingly, the motion to compel as to requests 62 and 67 is DENIED. 

Requests 63 through 66, 68, 69, 72, and 73 

Requests 63 through 66, 68, 69, 72, and 73 are case-specific discovery 

permitted as provided for in CMO 83. These requests address (1) Bayer’s duties 

as they relate to Kaiser, (2) representations, marketing, promotions, and/or 

claims Bayer directed to Kaiser and/or Kaiser physicians, and (3) 

warnings/disclosures that Bayer did or not give to give to Kaiser and Kaiser 

physicians. These requests cover case-specific topics that relate to Mrs. Galinis’ 

contention that Bayer overpromoted and marketed Yasmin to Kaiser Permanente. 

Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion to compel answers to these requests is 

GRANTED. 

Case 3:09-cv-04980-SI Document 30 Filed 09/29/16 Page 6 of 8
7 

Requests 70, 71 and 74 

Requests 70 and 71 address warnings given (or not given) to Mrs. Galinis’ 

prescribing physician. Request 74 addresses causation in relation to Mrs. Galinis’ 

stroke. These requests are clearly case-specific and Bayer admits as much (Doc. 

27 p. 10). However, as argued by Bayer, each of these requests seeks an answer to 

an ultimate question in the case – the specific causation of Mrs. Galini’s stroke. 

Those answers depend on discovery that is not yet complete. 

Accordingly, the motion to compel answers to requests 70, 71 and 74 is 

GRANTED. However, Bayer need not provide its answers until after the close of 

expert discovery. 

Interrogatory Number 5 

 For all answers except unqualified admissions, plaintiffs served an 

interrogatory requesting “all facts upon which you base your response,” “the 

names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all persons who have knowledge of 

those facts,” and “all documents and other tangible things that support your 

response.” (Doc. 27-9, plaintiffs’ interrogatory Number 5, June 28, 2016). Bayer 

contends that answering this interrogatory would put an enormous burden on 

Bayer. Bayer argues that many of the plaintiffs’ requests include patently false 

scientific statements or factual claims and that answering the associated 

interrogatory would require pages upon pages of explanation and laborious 

investigation of all of the documents and knowledgeable witnesses (Doc. 27 p. 8). 

Case 3:09-cv-04980-SI Document 30 Filed 09/29/16 Page 7 of 8
8 

 The Court agrees with Bayer. This interrogatory is unduly burdensome and 

is breathtaking in its scope such that it invades the generic discovery that was 

accomplished and virtually requires the defendant to detail its entire defense in 

answering a single interrogatory. Accordingly, the motion to compel, as to this 

interrogatory, is DENIED. 

CONCLUSION 

x The Court DENIES the motion to compel as to the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition 

notice. 

x The Court DENIES the motion to compel as to requests 1 through 61. 

x The Court DENIES the motion to compel as to requests 62 and 67.

x The Court GRANTS the motion to compel as to requests 63 through 66, 68, 

69, 72 and 73. 

x The Court GRANTS the motion to compel as to requests 70, 71 and 74. 

However, as to these requests, Bayer need not provide its answers until 

after the close of expert discovery. 

x The Court DENIES the motion to compel as to interrogatory number 5. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Signed this 29th day of September, 2016. 

 

 

 United States District Judge 

Digitally signed by Judge David 

R. Herndon 

Date: 2016.09.29 13:36:56 -05'00'

Case 3:09-cv-04980-SI Document 30 Filed 09/29/16 Page 8 of 8