2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

2-2-2010 

# P atty S mith v

. J ohnson & J ohnson
P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-1223

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin
. C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" P atty S mith v

. J o hn s on & J o hn s on" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1823. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1823P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N os . 09- 1223 and 09- 1292

P A T T Y L E E S M IT H , o n b eh alf o f h erse lf an d o thers

s im ila rl ys itu a te d ,

A ppel l anti n N o. 09- 1223

v . J OHNS ON AND J OHNS ON,

P A T T Y L E E S M IT H , o n b eh alf o f h erse lf an d o thers

s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed

v. J OHNS ON AND J OHNS ON,

A ppel l anti n N o. 09- 1292

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D
. C

. C i v. N o. 06- 04787) H onor abl e J os e L. L i nar es , D i s t r i ctJ udge2 A r gued D ece m ber17, 2009

B E FO R E : SL O V I T E R , J O R D A N and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed: February02, 2010)

M i chae l R
. D i C hi ar a ( ar gued) Jo se p h & H e rz f

e ld 757 T hi r d A venue 25t h Fl oor N ew Y or k, N Y 10017 A t t or ney s forA ppel l ant
- C r os s - A ppel l ee Fr anci s X
. D ee ( ar gued) S tep h e n F . P a y e rle M cEl r oy , D eut s ch, M ul vaney& C arpent er 100 M ul berr ySt r eet T hr ee G at ew ayC ent er N ew ark, N J 07102- 0000 R ene M
. J ohns on T ho m as A

. L i nthors t L arr yL
. T ur ner3 M ich a e l J. O ss ip M or gan, L ew i s & B ocki us 502 C arnegi e C ent er Pr i ncet on, N J 08540- 6241 Al l y s o n N. Ho M or gan, L ew i s & B ochi us 1000 L oui s i ana St

. , Sui t e 4200 H ous t on, T X 77002- 5006 A t t or ney s forA ppel l ee- C r os s - A ppel l ant

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udge.

I . I NT RO DU CT I ON T hi s m at t ercomes on be for e thi s C our ton appea l and cr os s - appea l fr om an or derof the D i s t r i ctC our t en ter ed on D ecem ber 3 0, 20 08 , grant i ng sum m aryj ud gm ent agai nst pl aint i ff Patt yL ee Smi t h and i n favorof def endantJ ohns on and J ohns on ( “J & J ”)

. W e w i l l aff i r m on Sm i t h’s a p p eal but w ill d is m is s J & J ’s c ro s s -a p p e a l.

I I . BA CKGROUND4 F rom A pri l 20 06 t o O ct ob er 2006 , M cN ei l l P ediatrics, a J & J w hol l y - ow ned s ubs i diary , empl oy ed Sm i t h i n t he p o sit ion o f S en io r P rof essio n al S ales R ep rese n tat ive. In es s ence , Sm i t h’ s pos i t i on r equi r ed hert o tr av el t o var i ous d o c to rs’ o f

f ice s a n d h o sp itals w h e re sh e e x to lled th e b e n e f it of J & J ’ s pharm ace ut i cal drug C oncert a t o t he pre s cr i bi ng doct or s . J & J hoped thatt he doct or s , havi ng l earned aboutt he benef i t s of C oncer ta, w oul d choos e t o pr es cr i be thi s drug for their pa ti en ts. S m ith , h o w ev er, did n o t sel l C o n ce rt a (a co n tr o ll ed su b stan ce ) directlyto the d o ctors, as su ch sales a re p r o h i b i t e d b yl a w. J & J gav e Sm i t h a l i s tof t ar getdoct or s thati tcr eat ed a n d t o l d h e rt o c o m p l e t e a n a v e r a g e o f t e n v i s i t s p e rd a y, vi s i t i ng everydoct oron hert ar getl i s tatl eas tonce eac h quar t er . T o s chedul e vi s i t s w it h rel uct antdoct or s , Sm i t h had to b e inv en ti v e a n d cu lt ivate re lat ion sh ip s w ith the d o ctor’s sta f f , an end eavo r i n w hich she fou nd that coffee an d d on u ts w ere u sef

u l t o o ls. J & J left th e it inera ryan d o rde r of S m ith ’s vi s i t s t o t he t arg et doct or s t o herdi s cr et i on. T he J & J t ar get l i s ti dent i fi ed “hi gh- pr i or i t y ” doct o rs thati s s ued a l ar ge n u m b e r o f

p re sc r ip ti o n s f

o r C o n c e rta o r a c o m p e tin g p ro d u c t, an d S m ith co u ld ch o o s e to v isi t high -priorityd o ctors m o re th a n o n c e e a c h q u a rte r. J& J g a v e h e r a b u d g e t f o r th e se v isits a n d s h e c o u ld u se th e m o n eyin the b u d g et t o take the d o ctors to lu n c h o r t o s p o n s o r s e m in a rs . A tt he m ee ti ngs , Sm i t h w or ked off of a pr epar ed
“ m e s s a g e ” t h a t J &J p r o v i d e d h e r , a l t h o u g h s h e h a d s o me di s cr et i on w hen dec i ding how t o appr oach the conve r s at i on. J & J gave her pr e- appr oved vi s ual ai ds and di d not perm i ther t o us e otherai ds

. J & J tr ai ned i t s repr es ent at i ves t o gauge a5 d o c to r’s in ter e st a n d k n o w led g e a b o u t th e p ro d u c t, ev e n tu a lly b u ild in g to a “ c o m m itm e n t” to p re s c ri b e th e d ru g . I n Sm i th’s depos i t i on s he made i tcl earthats he ap p reci at ed the fr eedom and r es pons i bi l i t yt hatherpos i t i on pr ovi ded. T hough a s upervi s oracc om pani ed S m it h dur i ng t h e d o c t o rv i s i t s o n a f e w d a y s e a c h q u a r t e r , b yh e ro wn c a l c u l a t i o n S mi t h was u n s u p e r v i s e d 9 5 % o f th e t i me . As S m ith e x p lain e d d u rin g h e r d e p o sitio n , “[ i]t w a s re a llyu p to m e to ru n th e ter rito ryth e w a y I w a n ted to . A n d it w a s n o t a m icr o m a n a g e d typ e o f

jo b . I h a d p re ttym u c h th e a b ili tyto w or k i tt he w ayI w ant ed t o w o rk i t
. ” A pp. at54. A ccor di ng t o Sm i t h’ s j ob des cri p ti o n , s he w as r equi r ed t o pl an and pri o ri t i ze he rr es pons i bi l i t i es i n a mannerthatm axi m i zed b u sin e ss re su lts. J& J w itn e ss e s te s ti f ied (a n d J& J d o c u m e n ts co n firm ed ) th at S m ith w as th e “ ex p ert” o n h er o w n terri tory and w as s uppos ed t o devel op a s t r at egi c p l an t o achi eve h ig h e r s a le s . B efore her vis i t s, S m i t h com plet ed pre- vis i t report s to hel p hers el ectt he corr ects t r at eg y fo r t hatday ’ s vi s i t s . A tthe e n d o f h e r d a y , S m it h c o m p lete d p o st-v isit re p o rts s u mma r i z i n g t h e e v e n t s o f t h e v i s i t s . Smi t h wou l d r e f e r back t o thi s i nfo rm at i on befo re herne xt vi si tt o the sam e do ct ors. A f ter add i ng up t he ti m e she spen tw ri t i ng pre- vis i treport s, dr i vi ng , conduct i ng t he vi s i t s , w r i t i ng pos t
- vi s i tr epor t s , and co m p let ing o ther task s, S m ith w o rke d m o re tha n eigh t ho u rs p e r d a y . S m ith e a rn e d a b a se sa lar yo f $ 6 6 ,0 0 0 b u t w a s n o t p a id o v erti m e, th o u g h J& J, at i ts dis c re ti o n , co u ld aw ard h er a bonus

. J & J cons i der ed the numberof C oncert a prescript i onsS m ith ’s s itu ati o n is no t un iqu e, an d ca ses s im il ar to this o n e a re 1 p e n d in g in th e C o u rts o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e S e c o n d a n d N in th C i r cui t s . O uropi ni on, how ever , focus es o n S m i t h and the s p e c i f i c f a c t s d e v e l o p e d i n d i s c o v e r y i n th i s c a s e . C o n s e q u e n t l y, w e re c o g n ize th a t b a se d o n d if f e re n t f a c ts, c o u rts, in c lu d in g th is C ou rt , cons i der i ng s i m i l ari s s ues i nvol vi ng s al es r epr es ent at i ves for othe rph a r mac e ut i c a l c ompa ni e s , orpe r ha ps e ve n f orJ & J, m ig h t r e a c h a d if

f e re n t r e s u lt th a n th a t w e re a c h h e re .

6 i s s ued i n S m i t h’ s t err i t oryi n det erm i ni ng herbonus

. T he co ll ec ti o n o f th is da ta an d it s d ir ec t r elati o n sh ip to S m ith ’s e f f o rts w a s, h o w e v e r, su b

jec t to e rro r a s p u r c h a se rs m ig h t f ill t hei rpr es cr i pt i ons i n anothert err i t oryorw i t h a pharm acyt hat w ou l d n ot r el ease the p ert i nen ti nfo rm at i on t o J& J. S m ith f iled s u it se e k in g o v e rtim e p a yu n d e r th e F a ir L aborSt andar ds A ct( “FL S A ”), 29 U

. S. C

. § 201 et

. s eq. A fter d isco v ery , inclu d ing m o st si g n ifi ca n tl yS m ith ’s d e p o s i t i o n , r e v e a l e d t h e f a c t s t h a twe j u s ts u m m a r i z e d , J &J m ov ed fors um m aryj udgm ent , ar gui ng thats he w as not ent i t l ed t o over t i m e payundert he FL SA beca us e s he w as exemptfr om t hats t atut e underei t her the “out s i de s al es m an” exempt i on ort he “adm i ni s t r at i ve empl oy ee” exempt i on. 29 U
. S. C. § 2 1 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( s t a tu t o ry e x e mpt i o n s )

. Smi t h u r g e d t he D ist ri ctC our tt o denyJ & J ’ s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent and , in st ead, t o g ranta m oti on that s he fil ed to cert i fythe case as a cl as s act i on. 1 T he D i s t r i ctC our taddr es s ed th ese m ot i ons i n an opi n ion and or der , bot h dat ed D ece m ber30, 2008. Sm i t h v. J ohns on and J ohns on, N o . 06- 4787, 2008 W L 5427802J & J ’ s cr os s - appea l ur ges us t o aff i r m on t he al t ernat e bas i s of 2 t he out s i de s al es m an exe m pt i on . Y eta part y , w i t houtt aki ng a cr os s - appeal , m ayur ge i n s uppor tof an or derfr om w hi ch an appea l h a s b e e n t a k e n a n yma t t e ra p p e a r i n g i n t h e r e c o r d , at l eas t i f t h e p a r t yr e l i e d o n i ti n t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t
. Se e Uni t ed S tate s v . A m e ric a n R y . E x p re ss C o ., 2 6 5 U .S . 4 2 5 , 4 3 5 , 4 4 S .C t. 5 6 0 , 5 6 4 (1 9 2 4 ) . C o n se q u e n tly , J& J’s c ro ss -a p p e a l is s uper fl uous and w e w i l l di s m i s s it

. S ee K ont aki s v. B ey er , 19 F. 3d 11 0 , 1 1 2 n . 1 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 9 4 )

. But t h e d i s mi s s a l d o e s not c h a n g e t h e a r g u m e n t s a ti s s u e , t h o u g h i te s t a b l i s h e s t h a tJ &J shou l d n ot have fil ed it s r eplybrief in supp ortof it s cr ossa p p e a l. W e h a v e d isre g a rd e d th a t b rie f in a sm u c h a s J & J s h o u ld notenj oy t he benefi t of havi ng an opportuni t y for extr a br i efi ng due t o i t s ow n pr ocedur al err or . I ndeed, i n i t s br i ef J & J r eci t ed t hati tr ecogni zed thati tcoul d have r ai s ed t he out s i de s al es m an exempt i on w i t houta cr os s - appea l but t hat i t fi l ed t he “not i ce of cr os s - appea l outof an a bundance of ca ut i on. ” A ppel l ee’ s br

. at 3 n. 3. W e ca n under s t and J & J ’ s couns el ’ s caut i on w i t h r es pect 7 ( D
. N
. J
. D ec. 30, 2008)

. T he C our tanal y zed the out s i de sa les m a n e x e m p tio n f

irst, b u t f

o u n d th a t itd id n o t a p p lyto Smi t h

. W h e n i ttu r n e d t o th e a d mi n i s t r a t i v e e mpl oy ee e x e m p tio n , it s re su lt w a s d if f e re n t as th e C o u rt f

o u n d th a t it d i d a p p l yt o S m i t h

. Ac c o r d i n g l y , th e C o u r tg r a n t e d J &J s um m ary j udgm ent
. I n vi ew of t he C our t ’ s s ubs t ant i ve rul i ng, Sm i t h’ s m ot i on fo r c la s s act i on cert i fi cat i on beca m e moot and th e C o u rt d e n ied it. S m i t h then fil ed thi s a p p e al , and J& J fi l ed a crossappea l

. W e w i l l aff

i r m on Sm i t h’ s appea l b u t di s m i s s t he c ro ss -a p p e a l. 2t o fi l i ng a not i ce of cr os s - appea l , buti ts houl d nothave f i l ed the re p ly b rie f o n th e c ro ss -a p p e a l w ith o u t lea v e o f th is C o u rt, as it r e c o g n i z e d t h a tt h e c r o s s - a p p e a l p r o b a b l y w a s n o tn e c e s s a r y. 8 I I I . J URI S DI CTI ON AND S TANDA RD O F REVI EW The D i s t r i c t C ou rtha d j ur i s di c t i on ov e rthe FLSA c l a i m s u n d e r2 9 U. S

. C. § 2 1 6 a n d 2 8 U
. S

. C

. § 1 3 3 1

. We have j ur i s d i ct i on overSm i t h’ s appea l under28 U

. S. C

. § 1291. W e exer ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overa gr antof s um m ary j udgm entan d ap p lythe s ame st andar d us ed bythe D i s t r i ct C our t
. J eff

er s on B ank v. Pr ogr es s i ve C as . I ns . C o. , 965 F. 2d 1 2 7 4 , 1 2 7 8 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) ; T u rn e r v . S c h e ri n g -P lo u g h C o rp ., 9 0 1 F
. 2d 33 5, 34 0 ( 3d C i r. 19 90 ). F ederal R ule of C iv il Pr ocedur e 56( c) s et s for t h t he s t andar d fors um m aryj udgm ent a n d st a tes th a t su m m a ryju d g m e n t sh a ll b e g ra n ted o n lyif “ther e i s no genui ne i s su e as to anym at er i al fac tand .

. . the m ovanti s en ti tl ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” To be m at er i al , a di s put ed fa ctm us tbe one thatm i ght “a ff ectt he out come of the s ui tundergoverni ng l aw . ” A nder s on v. L i ber t yLo b b y , I n c . , 4 7 7 U. S. 2 4 2 , 2 4 8 , 1 0 6 S. Ct

. 2 5 0 5 , 2 510 ( 1986)

. W e dr aw al l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s i n fa v o r o f the non - mov a n t
. M e y e r v . Ri e g e l Pr o d s . Corp . , 7 2 0 F. 2 d 303, 3 0 7 n . 2 (3d C ir

. 1 9 8 3 ).

I V. DI S CU S S I ON9 U ndert he FL SA , empl oy ees w ho w o rk m or e than 40 h o u rs p e r w e e k a re e n tit led to o v e rtim e p a yu n les s th e yf a ll w it hi n one of the FL SA ’ s exempt i ons . 29 U

. S. C

. §§ 207, 213. T he FL SA i s r emedi al and i s cons t rued br oadl y , but exempt i ons t o i tar e cons t rued narr o w lyi

. e. , agai ns tthe empl oy er . L aw r ence v. C i t y of Phi l adel phi a, 527 F
. 3 d 2 99, 310 ( 3d C i r . 2008)

. C ongr es s has empow er ed t he Secr et aryof L ab o r to d e f

ine a n d d eli m itthe term s o f th e F L S A ’s exempt i ons byr egul at i on. 29 U
. S. C

. § 213( a)

. T he Secr et ary ’ s r egul ati ons , w hi ch w er e pr om ul gat ed us i ng not i ce- and- comm entproc edur es , have c ont r ol l i ng w ei ght u n less fo u n d to b e a rbitrary , ca p ri ciou s, o r m an ifestl yco n tr ary to th e s ta tu te
. S e e C h e v ro n v . N a tu ra l R e s . D e f. C o u n c il, I n c ., 46 7 U. S. 8 3 7 , 8 4 3

– 4 4 , 1 0 4 S. Ct

. 2 7 7 8 , 2 7 8 2 ( 1 9 8 4 )

. T he D i s t r i ctC our thel d t hatthe administ r at i ve empl oy ee exempt i on appl i ed t o S m i t h, s o w e foc us on t he r egul at i ons des cr i bi ng t hatexempt i on. See 29 C

. F. R
. § 541. 200–. 204. U nder t he admi ni s t r at i ve empl oy ee exempt i on, an y one empl oy ed i n a bona f i d e adm i ni s t r at i ve ca paci t yi s exempt fro m the F L S A ’s o v erti m e req u ir em en ts. 2 9 U .S .C . § 213( a) ( 1)

. T he Secr et aryhas defi ned an a dm i ni s t r at i ve empl oy ee a s s om eone: (1 ) C o m p e n sa ted o n a sa lar yo r f e e b a sis a t a ra te o f n o t l e s s th a n $ 4 5 5 p e r w e e k

. . . exclusi ve o f bo ard, l od ging or ot her faci l i t i es; ( 2) W h o s e p r i ma r y d u t y i s t h e p e r f o r ma n ce of o f f ice o r n o n -m a n u a l w o rk d ire c tlyre late d to t he manageme n t orgener al bus i nes s oper at i ons10 of the em ploy er ort he em ploy e r’s cust om ers ; and ( 3) W hos e pr i m arydut yi ncl udes t he exe r ci s e of d isc re tio n a n d in d e p e n d e n t ju d g m e n t w ith re s p e c t to m a tte rs o f

s ig n if ic a n c e . 2 9 C

. F
. R
. § § 5 4 1

. 2 0 0

. T h e p arti es a g ree that S m ith ’s s al aryqual i fi es herfort he admi ni s t r at i ve empl oy ee exempt i on, butdi s put e h er qua l i fi cat i on forthatexempt i on un der the rem ai ning t w o sect i on s. W e fi nd thatt he admi ni s t r at i ve empl oy ee e xempt i on a p p lies to S m ith . W h ile te stif y in g a t h e r d e p o si tio n S m ith el a b o r a t e d o n t h e i n d e p e n d e n ta n d ma n a g e r i a l q u a l i t i e s t hat herpos i t i on r equi r ed. H ernon- m anual p o sit i on r equi r ed her t o form a s t r at egi c pl an desi gned t o m axi m i ze s al es i n her t err i t or y . W e thi nk that thi s r equi r ements at i s fi ed the “dir ect l yrel at ed to the m anag em ent orgen eral bu si ness oper at i ons of the empl oy er ” pro v is i on of the admi ni s t r at i ve empl oy ee e xempt i on beca u se i ti nvol ved a hi gh l evel of p lan n in g a n d f

o re sig h t, an d th e stra teg ic p la n th a t S m ith devel oped gui ded the e x ec u t i on of herr emai ni ng dut i es . See 29 C

. F. R
. § 5 4 1. 203( e) ( “H um an r es our ces m anage r s w ho form ul at e, i nt erpret or i m pl ementempl oym entpol i ci es and ma n a g e me n tc o n s u l t a n t s who s tu d yt h e o p e r a t i o n s o f a bus i nes s and pr o p o se cha nges i n or gani zat i on gener al l ym eet the du ti es req u ir em en ts fo r the ad m inistrativ e ex em p ti o n . ”); R ei ch v

. John A l den L i fe Ins. C o. , 12 6 F

. 3d 1, 3– 5, 12 (1st C ir. 1 9 9 7 ) (a p p ly in g a d m in istra tiv e e m p lo y e e e x e m p tio n to m ar k e t i n g r e p r es ent at i ves w ho deal t w i t h l i cens ed11 in d e p e n d e n t in su ra n c e a g e n ts w h o , in tu rn , d e a lt w ith p u rc h a s e rs o f

in s u ra n c e p ro d u c ts ). W hen w e turn t o the “e xer ci s e of di s cr et i on and i ndepende nt j udgm entw i t h r es pectt o m att er s of s i gni fi canc e” r equi r ement , w e not e thatSm i t h exec ut ed nea r l yal l of her d u ties w ith o u t d ire c t o v e rsig h t. In f a c t, sh e d e s c r ib e d h e rse lf a s t h e ma n a g e r o f

h e ro wn b u s i n e s s wh o c o u l d ru n h e ro wn t err i t or yas s he s aw fi t
. G i ven thes e desc r i pt i ons , w e conc l ude t hatSm i t h w as s ubject t o the admi ni s t r at i ve empl oy ee e xe mpt i on . Cf. Cot e v. Bur r ou gh s W e l l c ome Co. , 55 8 F. Supp. 883, 886- 87 ( E
. D
. Pa. 1982) ( appl y i ng ad m ini s t r at i ve empl oy ee e xempt i on t o m edi cal “det ai l er ” eve n though des cr i pt i on of empl oy ee’ s dut i es w as m or e par s i m o n ious than S m ith ’s de scripti o n o f h er d u ti es h ere ). Sm i t h n e v e r t h e l e s s h a s a s k e d u s t o l i mi tt he s i gni fi canc e of he rt es t i m on y an d fi nd t hats he l acke d di s cr et ion w i t h r es pectt o m at t er s of s i gni fi canc e. I ndeed, her a tto rn e yc o n ten d e d a t o ra l ar g u m e n t o n th is a p p e a l th a t S m ith o v e r i n f l a t e d h e ri mp o r t a n c e d u r i n g t h e d e p o s i t i o n , a n d t h a twe sh o u ld co n side r he r s ta tem en ts m ere p u ff ery . W e a re unw i l l i ng t o i gnor e Sm i t h’ s t es t imonyt o hol d t hatther e i s an i s s u e o f ma t e r i a l f

a c tme r e l yb e c a u s e o f

Smi t h ’ s r e q u e s tt hat w e d o so . In th is reg a rd , w e p o in t o u t th a t w h e n S m ith t es ti fi ed s he s ur el yunder s t ood t he s i gni fi canc e of he r t es t i m onyi n t he cont extof thi s cas e. I n t he ci r cumst ance s befor e us , w e ac ceptSm i t h’ s deposit i on t es t i m onyas anW e a lso p o in t o u t th a t a lth o u g h th e “ sh a m a f f id a v it” d o c trin e is 3 no t a pp l i c a bl e he r e , t he pr i nc i pl e of t ha t do c t r i ne s ur el yi s. U ndert he s ham affi davi tdoctr i ne a c our tw i l l di s r egar d an af fi davi ti ncons i s t entw i t h an af fi ant ’ s pr i ordepos i t i on t es t i m onyw hen a pa r t ym oves fors um m aryj udgm enton t he b a sis o f th e d e p o sitio n u n les s the p a rtyre ly in g o n th e a f f id a v it i n oppos i t i on t o t he mot i on can pr esen t a legi t i m at e r eas on for t he di s cr epanc i es betw een the depos i t i on and the aff i davi t
. See B aerv. C has e, 392 F. 3d 609, 623- 25 ( 3d C i r . 2004)

. W e do not r egar d Sm i t h’ s couns el ’ s cont ent i on that S m i t h’ s depos i t i on t es t i m onyw as puffe r yas a r eas on t o di s r egar d t he depos i t i on. I nas m uch as w e af

fi r m t he D i s t r i ctC o ur t ’ s appl i cat i on of the 4 admi ni s t r at i ve empl oy ee e xempt i on, w e do notaddr es s t he ques t i on of t he appl i cabi l i t y of the out s i de s al es m an exe m pt i on. 12 ac cu rate d esc ri p ti o n o f h er p o sit ion an d th u s w e w il l aff irm th e o rd e r g ra n tin g J& J s u m m a ryju d g m e n t. 3 I n r eac hi ng ourr es ul tw e have notover l ooked our opi ni on i n M ar t i n v. C ooperE l ec. Suppl yC o . , 940 F. 2d 896 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 9 1 ) , o n wh i c h S mi t h h e a v i l yr e l i e s . Ra t h e r , we f i n d t h a t Co o p e r i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e o n t h e f a c t s . M o r e o v e r , we ag ree w ith the D istr ictC o u rtthat ch an g es in the S ec retary ’s r egul at i ons s i nce C ooperm ake thatcas e i nappl i cabl e her e. See Sm i t h, 2008 W L 5427802, at*8- 9. 4

V. CO NC L US I ON13 T h e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r o f D e c e m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 9 in N o. 09- 1223 w i l l be af fi r m ed and J & J ’ s cr os s - appea l i n N o. 0 9

- 1 2 9 2 wi l l b e d i s mi s s e d

. T h e p a r t i e s wi l l b e a rt h e i ro wn c o sts o n th is a p p e a l.