expressly approved in Rule 84 (Form 21 simply admits the
corresponding complaint's allegation as to jurisdiction, as ought
to be done in the absence of a bona fide jurisdictional dispute) .
Various of GSK's affirmative defenses (“ADs”) are also
problematic. In addition to State Farm App. 95, see the recent

Seventh Circuit opinion in Campania Mgmt. Co. v. Rooks, Pitts &

Poust, Nos. 01-1651 and 01-1771, 2002 WL 981966, at *6 (7 Cir.

May 14).

Despite the harm to the environment that will be created by
killing another tree to produce multiple copies of still another
35-plus page pleading, GSK's counsel must clean up their act by
providing an appropriate Amended Answer and ADs in lieu of the
current submission. Because that new pleading should be self-
contained as a matter of convenience, the existing pleading is
stricken in its entirety, with leave granted to file the
corrective document on or before June 18, 2002. No charge is to
be made to GSK by its counsel for the added work and expense
incurred in correcting counsel's own errors. GSK's counsel are
ordered to apprise their client to that effect by letter, with a

copy to be transmitted to this Court's chambers as an informa-

tional matter (not for fi

ing)

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: June 4, 2002


‘Orwer . otm (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

‘Name of Assigned Judge + Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge Milton I. Shadur than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 2351 DATE 6/4/2002
CASE Donna Baumann vs. Bayer AG, et al
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
f the motion bei d.

MOTION: of the motion being presented.]

DOCKET ENTRY:

(1) Oo Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) oO Brief in support of motion due

@) a Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer brief due

4) Oo Ruling/Hearing on set for at

(5) im} Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at

(6) Oo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at .

(7) o Trial[set for/re-set for] on at

(8) Q [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at

(9) oO This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

COFRCP4(m) OGeneral Rule21 CIFRCP41(a)(1) CI FRCP41(a\(2).

(10) | [Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Order. Despite the harm to the environment that will be created by killing
another tree to produce multiple copies of still another 35-page plus pleading, GSK’s counsel must clean up their act by
providing an appropriate Amended Answer and Ads in lieu of the current submission. Because that new pleading should be
self-contained as a matter of convenience, the existing pleading is stricken in its entirety, with leave granted to file the
corrective document on or before June 18, 2002.

ab {For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court, Document
. ‘Number
No notices required. number of notices x
J | Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

HUN 05 2002:

Notified counsel by telephone.

Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form. dockedys deputy initials

Copy to judge/magistrate judge,
oabyhe

date mailedboti
courtroom me =

deputy’s
initials

ngs Wd ‘i- nar 20
Gada ts-

DatGhife
conthal Clerk's Office

SN SN

rating deputy pitts



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
DONNA BAUMANN,
Plaintiff,

)
)
)
)
v. ) No. 02 C 2351
)
BAYER AG, et al., )

)

)

&
yy “py

4 ep

Defendants.
MEMORANDUM_ORDER
SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline ("GSK")
is the first of the defendants to have filed a responsive
pleading in this action brought by Donna Baumann. Because GSK's
counsel have been guilty of one of the errors identified in the

Appendix to State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D.

276, 279 (N.D. Ill. 2001), as well as violating some other common
sense aspects of the federal pleading process, this memorandum
order is issued sua sponte to send counsel back to the drawing
board to craft an appropriate substitute responsive pleading.

Throughout the GSK Answer its counsel employ such locutions
as these:

The allegations of this paragraph are legal conclusions
and/or are directed to another defendant, and therefore
require no response from GSK.

* * ‘ *
To the extent the allegations of this paragraph are
legal conclusions, they require no response from GSK.

* * *

To the extent there remain in this paragraph any


inconsistent or additional factual allegations that are
directed to GSK, they are denied.

* * *

GSK denies the remaining allegations of this paragraph
to the extent they are inconsistent with the current
state of medical knowledge.

* * *

To the extent the allegations of this paragraph are

factual and are directed to GSK, GSK admits only that

this paragraph purports to characterize clinical trials

Bayer conducted and/or submitted to the FDA in seeking

approval to market Baycol in the United States. Such

documents, being in writing, speak for themselves.
And the list could go on.

Even apart from the specific matters that are addressed in
the State Farm Appendix, it is of course obvious that any
purported response that begins with “to the extent that” is
wholly uninformative. How is the reader--whether opposing
counsel or this Court--to divine just what GSK's counsel may view
as being encompassed within that ambiguous language?

Moreover, although this Court has made no effort to single
out all of the flaws in the GSK pleading, it is similarly irksome
to see counsel for any defendant providing no response at all to
a complaint's allegations as to jurisdiction (Answer 414) or
venue (Answer §15) on the theory that such allegations are “legal
conclusions.” To that the short answer is found in the express

directive of Fed. R. Civ. P. (*Rule”) 8(b) and, for example, in

Form 21 in the Appendix of Forms that follow the Rules and are