UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

IMS HEALTH INCORPORATED, a Delaware ) 

corporation and VERISPAN, LLC, a Delaware ) 

limited liability company, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) Case No. 06-CV-280-PB 

vs. ) 

 ) 

KELLY A. AYOTTE, as Attorney General of ) 

the State of New Hampshire, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

_______________________________________) 

Declaration of James Mahon in Support of 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction

 I, James Mahon, hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the following is true and 

correct: 

1. I am over 18 years of age. I am General Manager of IMS Health Incorporated 

(“IMS Health”) for the Americas region. I have personal knowledge of the information 

contained in this declaration. 

2. After the New Hampshire Legislature passed the 2006 N.H. Laws 328, codified as 

N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 318:47-f & 318:47-g & 318-B:12, IV (2006) (referred to herein as “the 

Prescription Restraint Law”), but before it was signed into law by the Governor, I and other IMS 

Health officers and employees carefully reviewed the law to try to understand whether and how 

it would have an impact on our business. It was clear to me that however the statute would be 

interpreted and applied it would stop much of the work that IMS Health currently does with 

prescriber-identifiable data from New Hampshire prescription records, but I also was interested 

in obtaining clarification of some of the language in the statute that appeared to be vague or 

Case 1:06-cv-00280-PB Document 5-9 Filed 07/28/2006 Page 1 of 11
2 

ambiguous. 

3. Through our attorneys in Concord, New Hampshire, Orr & Reno, P.A., we asked 

a representative of the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office to meet with us to discuss how 

the law might be applied to IMS Health. Assistant Attorney General Richard Head had spoken 

to the Legislature about the legislation and he graciously agreed to speak with us about the 

matter. In advance of meeting with him, IMS Health provided him with a letter which set forth 

questions concerning the law. This letter is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit A. 

4. On June 8, 2006, Orr & Reno attorneys Jeffrey C. Spear and James P. Bassett and 

I met with New Hampshire Asst. Atty. Gen. Richard Head to discuss how the State would 

interpret and enforce the Prescription Restraint Law. Harvey Ashman, Vice President & 

Associate General Counsel for IMS Health also participated in the meeting by telephone. 

 5. At the outset of the meeting, Asst. Atty. Gen. Head stressed that nothing that he 

said at the meeting would bind the Attorney General’s office or prevent it from pursuing any 

action inconsistent with any statements he might make. We indicated our understanding of this, 

but asked if he would proceed with an informal discussion of the law so that IMS Health might 

have a better understanding of the risks that the law presented to IMS Health if the company 

continued with its normal business practices. 

 6. Asst. Atty. Gen. Head discussed with us the specific questions about the 

Prescription Restraint Law that we had raised in our letter and confirmed that the Attorney 

General would enforce all provisions of the law and defend its constitutionality if it were 

challenged. 

 7. Asst. Atty. Gen. Head tried to be helpful, yet he was unable to provide us with 

any assurance that IMS Health could not or would not be prosecuted if it continued its existing 

Case 1:06-cv-00280-PB Document 5-9 Filed 07/28/2006 Page 2 of 11
3 

business practices. After the meeting with Asst. Atty. Gen. Head, I was convinced that criminal 

and civil prosecutions would be brought if IMS Health continued to acquire from pharmacies and 

similar entities New Hampshire prescription records containing prescriber-identifiable data and 

continued to license that information to pharmaceutical companies so that they could use the 

information for advertising, marketing, promotion, or any activity that could be used to influence 

sales or market share of a pharmaceutical product, influence or evaluate the prescribing behavior 

of an individual health care professional, or evaluate the effectiveness of a professional 

pharmaceutical detailing sales force. 

 8. IMS Health has concrete plans to engage immediately in activity that it 

reasonably believes would result in criminal and civil prosecutions under the Prescription 

Restraint Law. Those concrete plans are to continue the purchasing and licensing of patient-deidentified prescription information from covered entities for commercial purposes that are 

ostensibly prohibited by the Prescription Restraint Law. 

 9. These are the same concrete plans that IMS Health has executed for the last 13 

years. IMS Health has ceased execution of these plans solely due to the passage of the 

Prescription Restraint Law and the real threat that IMS Health will be subjected to serious 

criminal and civil fines and injunctions if it executes these plans. 

Executed on July 27, 2006, in Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania. 

_____________/s/ James Mahon_______________ 

 James Mahon 

Case 1:06-cv-00280-PB Document 5-9 Filed 07/28/2006 Page 3 of 11
Case 1:06-cv-00280-PB Document 5-9 Filed 07/28/2006 Page 4 of 11
Case 1:06-cv-00280-PB Document 5-9 Filed 07/28/2006 Page 5 of 11
Case 1:06-cv-00280-PB Document 5-9 Filed 07/28/2006 Page 6 of 11
Case 1:06-cv-00280-PB Document 5-9 Filed 07/28/2006 Page 7 of 11
Case 1:06-cv-00280-PB Document 5-9 Filed 07/28/2006 Page 8 of 11
Case 1:06-cv-00280-PB Document 5-9 Filed 07/28/2006 Page 9 of 11
Case 1:06-cv-00280-PB Document 5-9 Filed 07/28/2006 Page 10 of 11
Case 1:06-cv-00280-PB Document 5-9 Filed 07/28/2006 Page 11 of 11