Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :06-cv—00083-GIVIS Document 4 Filed 02/23/2006 Page 1 of 2
Monars, Nrorrors, Ansar 8; TUNNEL; LLP
120l Noizrrr MARKET STREET
P.O. Box 1347
Wirmrnoron, DEIAWARE 19899-1347
302 658 9200
302 658 3989 FAX
Jscxc B. Brumrnrnno
302 assi 9291
302 425 30l2 are
[email protected]
February 23, 2006
BY ELECTRONIC FILING
The Honorable Gregory M. Sieet
United States District Court
844 King Street
Wilmington, DE i980l
Re: Mark S. ll/[erado v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceaticczls LP, et al.,
C.A. No. 06-7l (GMS)
Neil Lejon v. AstraZeneca AB, et al.,
CA. No. 06-73 (GMS)
MGT}’ Anne Gross v. AstraZeneca Pharmczceiliicals LP, et al.,
CA. N0. 06-Si (GMS)
[nfl Assoc. of F irefglzrers Local 22 Health & i/VGQCCIFG Fund v.
AstraZeneca P/iannaceaticrzls, LP., ei al.,
C.A. No. 06-S3 (GMS)
AF. of L. AGC Building Trades WBUFGFQ Plan, et al. v.
AstraZeneca Plianmaceziticcils, LP., et al.,
CA. No. 06-86 (GMS)
United Union oflioofers, ez al. v. AstraZeneca Plzawviaceiliicals,
LP., et al.,
C.A. No. 06-93 (GMS)
Plznnbers and Piloefitters Local 5 7 ,2 Pension Fund v.
AstraZeneca Phariiiaceziticcils, LP., ei al.,
C.A. N0. 06-102 {GMS)
Dear Judge Sleet:
On February E5, 2006, we tiled with the Court a proposed Case Management
Order to consolidate the proceedings in three direct purchaser class actions concerning
det`endants' Toprol-XL product (C./X. Nos. 06-52 (GMS), 06-63 (GMS), and 06»79 (Gi\/£S)). We
further advised the Court on February E6 that defendants intended to negotiate and propose to the
Court a further Case Management Order to address the seven other related class actions (set forth

Case 1:06-cv—00083-Gl\/IS Document 4 Filed 02/23/2006 Page 2 of 2
Hon. Gregory M. Sleet
February 23, 2006
Page 2
above) involving indirect purchasers or end—payors of Topro1—XL. We are tiling with the Court
today a proposed Case Management Order for these end—payor actions.
The Case Management Order contemplates, among other things, that the end-
payor plaintiffs will tile a single consolidated class action complaint to which defendants would
respond, and thus would suspend the current deadlines for defendants to answer, move or
otherwise respond to the individual complaints. (The parties are also tiling stipulations in each
of these actions extending defendants time to answer, move or otherwise respond to the
individual complaints in the event the Court does not enter the proposed Case Management
Order before the time to respond comes due. Five of the seven stipulations are being tiled
today. The last two are expected to he filed shortly.) As we previously noted, defendants may
request the Court to consolidate or coordinate the direct purchaser and end—payor actions.
Plaintiffs in these actions have reserved the right to object to such a request.
The parties are available at the Court‘s convenience should the Court have any
questions or comments with respect to the proposed Case Management Order.
Respectfully,
/s/ Jack B. Blumenfeld
J ack B. Blumenfeld (#l0l4)
cc: Peter T. Dalleo, Clerk (by hand)
Jeffrey S. Goddess, Esq. (by hand)
Jessica Zeldin, Esq. (by hand)
Pamela S. Tilzellis, Esq. (by hand)
Gary E. Traynor, Esq. (by hand)
Seth D. Rigrodslcy, Esq. (by hand)
Karen L. Morris, Esq. (by telecopy)
Ronan P. Harty, Esq. (hy telecopy)
Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. (by telecopy)
Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. (by telecopy)
Daniel Berger, Esq. (by telecopy)
Thomas M. Sobel, Esq. (by telecopy)
508026