Biotech Values

[mouton29]

<<Can Amphastar conceivably keep dodging MNTA's request for discovery for the next 6 months like they have the first 6 months?>>

Here are two motions Momenta recently filed to prevent them from doing that:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OFMASSACHUSETTS
____________________________________________
)
MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. )
and SANDOZ INC., )
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 11-11681-NMG
)
AMPHASTAR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., )
INTERNATIONALMEDICATION SYSTEMS, LTD.) Emergency Relief Requested
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., and )
WATSON PHARMA, INC. )
Defendants. )
)
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR EMERGENCY CONSIDERATION AND RELIEF
REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO ENFORCE COURT ORDER
Pursuant to L.R. 5.1, Plaintiffs Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Sandoz, Inc.
(collectively, “Momenta”) hereby respectfully request emergency consideration and relief
regarding Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion to Enforce Court Order (the “Emergency Motion”). As
explained in Momenta’s Emergency Motion, Defendants have confirmed that they will not
comply with the Court’s June 12, 2012 Order by producing the documents subject to the Order
by close of business on June 19, 2012 (tomorrow). Instead, Defendants are attempting to
disregard the unambiguous terms of the Order by simply offering to make the records available
for inspection in California. This would require multiple attorneys for Momenta to make a
separate cross-country trip solely to review documents that should have been produced months
ago. These documents are critical to upcoming depositions and expert reports, and there is no
justification for Defendants’ contempt of Court. For these reasons, and the reasons set forth in
the Emergency Motion, Momenta respectfully requests that the Court consider the Motion on an
emergency basis.
Case 1:11-cv-11681-NMG Document 268 Filed 06/18/12 Page 1 of 3
2
WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth herein and in Momenta’s Emergency Motion,
Momenta respectfully requests that the Court consider this Motion and grant relief as necessary
on an emergency basis.
Respectfully submitted,
MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
By their attorneys,...

Document 268 Filed 06/18/12 Page 3 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and
SANDOZ INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
AMPHASTAR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
INTERNATIONAL MEDICATION SYSTEMS,
LTD., WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
and WATSON PHARMA, INC.,
Defendants.
))))))))))))))
Civil Action No. 11-cv-11681-NMG
PLAINTIFFS MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. AND SANDOZ INC.’S
MOTION TO COMPEL FULL AND COMPLETE RESPONSES TO
INTERROGATORIES RELATED TO DEFENDANTS’
TESTING OF THEIR GENERIC ENOXAPARIN
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B), Plaintiffs Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and
Sandoz Inc. (collectively, “Momenta”) respectfully move this Court for an order compelling
Defendants Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc., International Medication Systems, Ltd., Watson
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Watson Pharma, Inc. (collectively, “Amphastar”) to provide full and
complete responses to Momenta’s Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2 and 4, which specifically relate to
Amphastar’s testing of generic enoxaparin. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5), Momenta also
seeks recovery of all costs and attorneys’ fees associated with this motion.
This Motion is filed with reference to, and in conjunction with, Momenta’s Motion to
Compel Production of Defendants’ Testing Documents (D.I. 225), currently pending before this
Court (the “Testing Motion”), which seeks production of all testing documents and records that
Amphastar continues to improperly withhold for all lots of enoxaparin that it has actually sold,
Case 1:11-cv-11681-NMG Document 270 Filed 06/18/12 Page 1 of 4
2
held in inventory, or destroyed. See Mem. in Support of Testing Motion & Decl. of Michael E.
Murawski (D.I. 231, 232).
As explained more fully in Momenta’s Memorandum in Support attached herewith,
Amphastar is continuing to stonewall discovery related to its testing by objecting to and failing
to answer any of Momenta’s interrogatories that specifically relate to testing. Using the same
arguments and conclusory statements it offered in reply to Momenta’s Testing Motion,
Amphastar continues to play games and flout its obligations under the discovery rules.
Amphastar’s persistent withholding of responsive, highly relevant documents and information
continues to prejudice Momenta’s ability to adequately prepare for depositions, expert reports
and trial.
WHEREFORE, Momenta respectfully requests that this Court compel Amphastar to
provide complete and full responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories 1, 2, and 4, which relate to
actual testing of the actual lots of enoxaparin sold, held in inventory, or destroyed since
September 19, 2011, and further, to award Momenta attorney’s fees incurred in bringing this
motion.
Respectfully submitted,
MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
By their attorneys,
/s/ Michael E. Murawski
Robert S. Frank, Jr. (BBO #177240)
[e-mail]
Eric J. Marandett (BBO #561730)
[e-mail]
Daniel C. Winston (BBO #562209)
[e-mail]
Michael E. Murawski (BBO #669857)
[e-mail]
CHOATE, HALL & STEWART LLP
Two International Place
Case 1:11-cv-11681-NMG Document 270 Filed 06/18/12 Page 2 of 4
3
Boston, MA 02110
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
SANDOZ INC.
By their attorneys,
/s/ Thomas P. Steindler
Sarah Chapin Columbia (BBO #550155)
[e-mail]
Melissa Nott Davis (BBO #654546)
[e-mail]
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
28 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Dated: June 18, 2012
- and -
Thomas P. Steindler (admitted pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
600 13th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-3096
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 7.1
I hereby certify that counsel for Plaintiffs has conferred with counsel for Defendants in a
good faith attempt to resolve or narrow the issue presented by this motion, and that Defendants
do not assent to this motion.
...