oct-zu-umatrot 5I :05-¤rn¤>t.tJt>t2¢B0cII
LORD, Bts$Et.u G. BROOK
».¢ Scurw no snot: srnztr
` CHIEAGO. ILLINOIQ GOGDS mc mucus orrtct
acc south GRAMD AVENUE. •‘r¤ ruonn
,3,,, °_~_°._,°° s.¤¤ u••¤¢•.¢¤. :u.tF¤nr•m ¤¤¤vt·a¤¤¤
CABLE. LOWIPCQ COS fAClI:|L¥t7:it·!`•=.i§°iti0¤
A*°"‘:"’ °°"’°’° Aruuvn orrtc:
FACEIIIILD t3•8I 443-GEOS Dil ATL4t•T|C CENTER
"°' "‘ $..'i'2‘T%â€..’§T»‘é$.fL¤i‘2I‘ "°°
O$[Qb@f 2D` fA¤¢t:£:; g;&?:::·•••v
DMG unc
IICNAEI. J. GAIZBTNEP N$W't?’¤:‘L¢::5gI¤
I.¤ND¤N OFFICE
“‘""“· °"‘" °"
I.¤ND:F;‘€é·L§*¢7gQn%%¢`2LAN¤
I L Hmmm r..¢5.3iIL7‘2.T%3’&2.m¤
Bartlit, Beck, Hermm Paleuchnt &. Scott
S4 West Hubbard Street
C bingo, IL 60610
Rc: Geneva Pkarmaaawicals Tvcbnelag Carp. v. Ban- laboratories. Inc., at al.
index N0. 98 Civ. 861 (RWS)
Apozhacan, Inc. v. Barr*Lab¤r¤mric.r. Inc., er al.
index No. 99 Civ. 3687* (RWS)
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Dear Adam: .
This will conirm our agreement to resolve Bnntford’s two subpoenas to 15.1. duPont
dclslcrnours &. Co.
jk t•··~‘•~v
objected to ench of Br¤ntf¤rd‘s :`t:l;p0cn¤:·r on numerous grounds, including their
breadth and the burden tbevslaced onB¤P¤lgt§ * '~"""
(\.•n·¤•u.•·• ·\.x\$ (D *9 •“·
DuPont’*has agreed to make n production of documents to Brantford. Brantford has agreed
» that the production is sufiicient to satisfy the document requests contained in the subpoenas.
As to the requireruonts in the subpoenas for deposition testimony, DuPont will present the
necessary wimess(es) ut dcposition(s) to provide authentication and foundation testimony for any
documents produced by DuPont to the extent DuPont properly can do so. Brantford has agreed that
this testimony is ¤uf5ciontto satisfy the deposition requests contained in the subpoenas. In the event
that the parties can teach an appropriate aiidavit or stipulation to address the authentication and
foundation tbr the documents. Brentford has agreed to accept the affidavit and/or stipulation in lieu
of deposition testimony.
DuPont will provide Brantford with an affidavit on the following issues: (1) DuI·‘ont‘s
relationship with Chcm0Sw¤d. (2) the amount of Chcmoewedw output of bulk warfarin sodium
crystal! inc cluthmto to the United States during l995·98. (3) whether Chemoswed offered crystalline
OCT—2®-28% 1'?= 24 312494444E QBX P. @2
OCT-2¤-UtDa§c15I :05-1mB:lR]U2¢B€$H
3
LORD. Bissau. c BROOK
Adam L. l-loclllch
‘ October 20. 2000
Page 2
warfarin sodium for sale betwccu 1995-98 and at what price. (4) whether bulk warfarin sodium
crystalline clatltratc produced by Chcruoswcd was made in accordance with USP XXIII and FDA
good manufacturing practices at an inspected and approved manufacturing facility; and (5) whether
Chcmoswcd had the captmity to produce bulk warfarin sodium crystalline clathratc in cxccss of its
actual output to the U.S- during 1995-98 and in what amount.
lftliis case goes tn trial, DuPont will present a witness atuial to testily to those facts sct forth
in the affidavit at an agreeable time during trial consistent with the schedule scr by the Court.
Brantford agrees on its behallZ and on bch¤1f0fBarr. that no additional documents or testimony will
be sought from DuPont.
But regards.
Vcxy truly yours,
Michael J. Gaertner
MIG/smk
AGREED ·
Adam bloeilich Q .l.l“~»z 6 ,
‘-D`,) P¤¢\'\ “6¤fVV\`·\€Ul" (¢\\.i ,
DCT—2@—2@B@ 17: 25 Btzaqaaaam Qnx i:»_ my
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms