In re Seroquel Products Liability Litigation September 2007 Middle District of Florida.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
REFINING YOUR DISCOVERY TACTICS: A PLAINTIFF PERSPECTIVE Amanda A. Farahany Barrett & Farahany, LLP 1401 Peachtree Street, Suite 101 Atlanta, GA
Advertisements

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(f) and In re Bristol-Myers Squibb Securities Litigation Lina Carreras.
Electronic Discovery Guidelines Meet and Confer - General definition. a requirement of courts that before certain types of motions and/or petitions will.
Williams v. Sprint/United Management Co.
M.D. Fla Michael Clarke 9/21/09. Parties Plaintiff – Mr. Haller & others (Plaintiffs) - contend injury by failing to provide their prescribers adequate.
92 S.W.3d 419 (Tex. 2002) Megan Marquardt November 22, 2010
NANPA Oversight Working Group Status Report to the NANC March 20, 2001 Chair Pat Caldwell.
Getting hold of the documents: Legal principles for disclosure in the anti-trust context Kassie Smith QC 22 May 2013.
Metropolitan Opera Association, Inc. v. Local 100, Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees International Union 212 F.R.D. 178 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 2004 District Justice Scheindlin Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC Zubulake V.
Proposed New Federal Rules Meet and Confer Proposed Rule 26(f): –The parties shall confer…to discuss any issues relating to preservation, disclosure or.
Qualcomm Incorporated, v. Broadcom Corporation.  U.S. Federal Court Rules of Civil Procedure – amended rules December 1, 2006 to include electronically.
BASIC OVERVIEW RONNETTE RAMOS · CAROLYN GOLD SAN FRANCISCO · APRIL 22, 2008 LANDLORD- TENANT LAW.
248 F.R.D. 372 (D. Conn. 2007) Doe v. Norwalk Community College.
© 2005 by Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved.1 CALIFORNIA CIVIL LITIGATION LAW AND MOTION.
© 2007 Morrison & Foerster LLP All Rights Reserved Attorney Advertising The Global Law Firm for Israeli Companies Dispute Resolution in the United States.
Cache La Poudre Feeds, LLC v. Land O’Lakes, Inc.  Motion Hearing before a Magistrate Judge in Federal Court  District of Colorado  Decided in 2007.
William P. Butterfield February 16, Part 1: Why Can’t We Cooperate?
Procedural Safeguards Kristina Krampe, 2005 EDS 513: Legal Issues in Special Education.
New Attorney Seminar February 26, OVERVIEW OF PRESENTATION Documents generally Notices of Hearings Motions Proposed Orders.
School Innovation Fund (SIF) Grant Round 3: RFP: TA-15 Getting Started Conference Call July 16, 2014: 2:00 P.M. - 3:00 P.M.
E-Discovery for System Administrators Russell M. Shumway.
1 Records Management and Electronic Discovery Ken Sperl (614) Martin.
Avoiding Sanctions & Surprises The ethics of discovery Kat Meyer, Esq. President of Conquest eDiscovery, LLC.
Motion to Compel A party is entitled to secure discovery from another party without court intervention.
Evaluating And Negotiating An IT Contract — The Buyer’s View Allan P. Weeks Attorney-At-Law Law Office of Allan Page Weeks Insert your logo in this area.
Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc. 250 F.R.D. 251 (D. Md. 2008)
Page 1 Records Management – 911 Case Study on Information Retention and Retrievability Rachel Verdugo March 23, 2010 Williamsburg, VA.
Part I Sources of Corrections Law. Chapter 4 - Going to Court Introduction – Chapter provides information on appearing in court, either as a witness or.
Comparative Law Spring 2003 Professor Susanna Fischer FRENCH CIVIL PROCEDURE March 20, 2003.
Aguilar v. ICE Division of Homeland Security 255, F.R.D. 350 (S.D.N.Y 2008)
© 2005 by Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved.1 CALIFORNIA CIVIL LITIGATION OBTAINING AND USING TANGIBLE EVIDENCE.
230 F.R.D. 640 (D. Kan. 2005).  Shirley Williams is a former employee of Sprint/United Management Co.  Her employment was terminated during a Reduction-in-
Wachtel v. Health Net, Inc. 239 F.R.D. 81 District of New Jersey
The Sedona Principles 1-7
FRCP 26(f) Sedona Principle 3 & Commentaries Ryann M. Buckman Electronic Discovery September 21, 2009 Details of FRCP 26(f) Details of Sedona Principle.
CIVIL PROCEDURE FALL 2005 SECTIONS C & F CLASS 24 DISCOVERY V.
Litigation Jody Blanke Professor of Computer Information Systems and Law.
Metropolitan Opera Association, Inc. v. Local 100, Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union 212 F.R.D. 178 S.D.N.Y
DOE V. NORWALK COMMUNITY COLLEGE, 248 F.R.D. 372 (D. CONN. 2007) Decided July 16, 2002.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2002 Class 8 September 13, 2002 Professor Fischer.
Meet and Confer Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that “parties must confer as soon as practicable - and in any event at least.
Supreme Court civil pre-trial procedures: an overview
© 2005 by Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved.1 CALIFORNIA CIVIL LITIGATION DEPOSITIONS.
P RINCIPLES 1-7 FOR E LECTRONIC D OCUMENT P RODUCTION Maryanne Post.
The Challenge of Rule 26(f) Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer July 15, 2011.
Chapter Twelve Civil Procedure Before Trial. Introduction to Law, 4 th Edition Hames and Ekern © 2010 Pearson Higher Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Cache La Poudre Feeds, LLC v. Land O’Lakes, Inc. 224 F.R.D. 614 (D. Colo. 2007) By: Sara Alsaleh Case starts on page 136 of the book!
Summary Judgment and Summary Adjudication LA 310.
© Copyright 2013, Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP. All Rights Reserved. Higher standards make better lawyers. ® OHIO H.B. 380: ASBESTOS TRANSPARENCY.
ANATOMY OF A TRIAL Opening Statements -1 st : Plaintiff -2 nd : Defendant Examinations -1 st : Plaintiff Witnesses -2 nd : Defendant Witnesses Closing.
2007 WL (D. Kan. 2007) April 9, 2007 Joe Dernbach.
Defensible Records Retention and Preservation Linda Starek-McKinley Director, Records and Information Management Edward Jones
© 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Coleman (Parent) Holdings, Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. Not Reported in So.2d, 2005 WL (Fla.Cir.Ct.) Ediscovery, Fall 2010 Francis Eiden.
The Sedona Principles November 16, Background- What is The Sedona Conference The Sedona Conference is an educational institute, established in 1997,
In Re Seroquel Products Liability Litigation United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 2007.
1 English Legal System Civil court reforms. 2 Civil courts Civil reform Thermawear V Linton (1995) CA as per Lord Justice Henry, “…the adversarial system.
1 PRESERVATION: E-Discovery Marketfare Annunciation, LLC, et al. v. United Fire &Casualty Insurance Co.
CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 22 Professor Fischer Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America October 16, 2002.
© Sara M. Taylor 2002 Rules of Discovery  State  Federal.
Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Financial Corp., 306 F.3d 99 (2d. Cir. 2002).
Electronic Discovery Guidelines FRCP 26(f) mandates that parties “meaningfully meet and confer” to consider the nature of their respective claims and defenses.
CIVIL PROCEDURE FALL 2003 SECTION F CLASS 22/23 DISCOVERY IV.
PRE-SUIT CONSIDERATIONS
Jody Blanke Professor of Computer Information Systems and Law
Civil Pre-Trial Procedures
Class III Objectives Subject Matter:
Civil Pretrial Practice
Business Law Final Exam
Presentation transcript:

In re Seroquel Products Liability Litigation September 2007 Middle District of Florida

Parties Plaintiffs: 22,000 individuals injured from taking Seroquel Primary side effect: diabetes Anti-psychotic medication Defendants: AstraZeneca Pharmaceutical manufacturer

Timeline of Legal Events Nov. 20, 2006 – Parties ordered to meet and confer by Dec. 12 Dec 5. – parties discuss discovery proposals for first time Dec. 12 – Court proposes two case management ideas that are to be agreed upon Jan. 26, 2007 – Court approves CMO2, which includes production of organizational charts, 8 preliminary witnesses, identification of databases, and production methods. April 26 – plaintiffs motion to compel denied, sanctions warning issued, and evidentiary hearing set for June 13 June 8 – hearing postponed due to plaintiff reliance on AZ July 3 – motion for sanctions filed by plaintiffs

Legal Framework Complex litigation principles (Rule 26) Requesting party – narrowly tailor the request Responding party – best situated to understand, so must be forthcoming and explicit in response Then Court can balance interests to modify as needed Rule 26(f) requires parties to be familiar with their systems before the meet-and-confer to make it a meaningful process Purposefully sluggish

Plaintiff Request for Sanctions AZ failed to produce a key element of the IND/NDA, sluggish production, and not in usable format Improper due to search issues, size of documents Inability to speak with IT to improve situation is inexplicable departure from Rule 26 and Sedona principles Failure to identify all relevant databases Defendants failed to disclose all databases, they failed to respond to requests to speak with proper individuals, and they used improper witnesses to testify Though both parties bear responsibility for being improperly adversarial, AZ bears more responsibility as creator and owner of information

Additional Plaintiff Request Failure of AZ to produce meaningful custodians (those most knowledgeable with Seroquel) Waited until May 2007 to produce overwhelming Seroquel documents Key search issues, blank pages, duplicates, no metadata, no page breaks in 3.75 million pages

E-Discovery Issues Court finds numerous violations by AZ Key word search inadequate It was a secret process; needs to be informed and cooperative Attachments and s omitted Deduplication methods remain mysterious Production was purposefully slow IT for AZ was not to speak with plaintiffs about discovery methods Lead counsel for AZ not familiar with key word development, did not know who was monitoring rule compliance, unsure of QC methods used Avoiding this: by becoming familiar with AZ policies and participating meaningfully in the meet-and-confer process, many of these issues avoidable Both parties bear burden, but AZ purposefully interfered with meaningful participation and used methods of production that were absurd

Sanctions Generally disfavored by the courts Slow down litigation, take focus off primary litigation; only to be used when necessary Here necessary because: lied about future compliance, failure to use appropriate parties to facilitate agreements, the lack of page breaks was a major issue, and responsibility for failure of vendors chosen Purposefully sluggish in production of documents Unable to grant sanctions without further testimony Online research: August 9 th, paid $198 million in damages to some 18,000 individuals.

Discussion Did counsel for the plaintiffs do enough in the meet-and-confer stage to avoid liability in the subsequent months? Is it appropriate that a party be purposefully sluggish to be exposed that much liability? Should the standard be higher?