Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03740/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03740-73/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, on behalf

of itself and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ASTRA USA, INC., ASTRA ZENECA

PHARMACEUTICALS LP, EVENTS

PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., BAYER

CORPORATION, BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB

COMPANY, PFIZER, INC.,

SCHERING-PLOUGH CORPORATION TAP

PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS, INC.,

ZENECCA, INC., ZLB BEHRING LLC,

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION,

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION

d/b/a GLAXO SMITHKLINE, WYETH, INC.,

WYETH PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-03740 WHA

ORDER CONCERNING

DEFENDANT AVENTIS’S

OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS’

PRODUCT DESIGNATION

IN DISCOVERY

The third amended case management order (Dkt. No. 667) sets forth the requirements for

Stage Two of discovery in this case. Among other things, it requires defendants to answer two

court-ordered interrogatories concerning a “designated drug,” a single drug selected by plaintiffs

for each defendant, to have been selected by July 19, 2010. Plaintiffs selected Ambien as the

designated drug for defendant Aventis. On August 6, 2010, Aventis objected to this designation

on grounds that Ambien is not a product at issue in this case. Plaintiffs’ filed a response on

August 12, and defendant Aventis replied on August 13.

Case 3:05-cv-03740-WHA Document 691 Filed 08/13/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

An order by Judge Chen from November 6, 2009 (Dkt. No. 511) addresses this issue. At

that time the parties disputed whether plaintiffs could seek discovery concerning pricing

information for products with certain labeler codes for which title is held by an entity related to

the relevant defendant, such as a parent or subsidiary entity, but not the defendant itself. Judge

Chen’s order holds that plaintiffs are entitled to discovery concerning a product with a certain

labeler code, “if there is a federal agency identifying a named defendant as the title holder for

[the] labeler code.” Judge Chen ruled that the products at issue for discovery are those that a

federal government agency website lists as manufactured by the defendants.

Ambien’s labeler code is 00024. The Health Resources and Services Administration

website lists Sanofi-Aventis US LCC as the manufacturer for the 00024 labeler code (Exh. 1 to

Baig Decl.). It is true that Sanofi-Aventis US LLC has not been sued. On the other hand,

plaintiffs have provided evidence that “Aventis” merged into Sanofi-Aventis. This has not been

directly disputed by defendant Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc., but defendant Aventis claims that

Sanofi-Aventis is a separate entity. The submissions by the parties on this issue are confusing as

to whether the “Aventis” that merged into Sanofi-Aventis was Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc. To

get to the bottom of this, there will be a hearing on AUGUST 31, 2010, AT 10:00 A.M. Aventis

Pharmaceuticals Inc. must bring to the hearing a witness prepared to testify under oath based on

personal knowledge concerning the exact history of the merger and the relationships between the

various related companies.

If defendant loses its objection, it must be prepared, by having personnel ready, to meet

the deadline to complete Stage Two discovery by September 30, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 13, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-03740-WHA Document 691 Filed 08/13/10 Page 2 of 2