Motion to compel substitution of corporate discovery witness and prohibit future privilege objections dismissed.
The plaintiff in a section 8 PMNOC action sought an order to compel the defendants to substitute their designated representative for a continued examination for discovery, and an order prohibiting the defendants from raising privilege objections to questions about litigation and settlement strategies.
The Court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff had not objectively demonstrated that the proposed replacement witness (the initial witness having retired) would be inadequate or unable to inform herself for follow-up questions.
The Court also declined to make a broad advance ruling prohibiting privilege objections, noting that a prior order had upheld the defendants' claims of privilege and the plaintiff had not established waiver.
Discovery motion regarding section 8 PM(NOC) action addresses settlement privilege and waiver.
In an action under section 8 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, the moving party sought production of settlement and cooperation agreements the responding parties had reached with other generic manufacturers.
The Court held that the agreements were protected by settlement privilege and that the responding parties had not waived the privilege by pleading what would have happened in the hypothetical 'but-for' world.
The Court ordered some questions answered and declined to order others, refusing to adjudicate questions in writing that were not reached during the allotted oral hearing.
