nn/1<1~:4o94¤9.z
wm5J°°n éa§é?°°I?‘lIlB-cv—OO§é§fJ‘.I/J?) 05Di>ht1l)1i3ent O%iIéiiO(l`i3/3117€G
:35 W Wectten Univ;. Guémeo tt. 6050 I -9703
TELEPHONE: 3 I E·55B-5600 F'ACS%Mlt.E: 3 I 2-555-5 700
2¤¤h•.=uAmu. 4?¤¤!
unmnmrer I¤1%4IDJ w.·¤»¤·¤me,¤c z¤¤¤¤:sat7 tesAron.¤.c.A ¤¤¤'rI-IBA; smP.uue¤mt;L Mile-SBN tz0¤$mm.$»n:s:uv¤ 75tl0I••.¤¤.FMr:x, Qbuwwererusrnm
zi £—:¤4¤’7D¤ E¤&2B2-BCBG ZI1BlE·I7® 4l5~5DI-i¤¤D ·¤I·223§ 7-7575 331·530&··B2B2 {muon. Daum EC-QI BDIII
I-4¤zD‘2’·4ZDDODU
FRQM; Michael Nuttex
312/558-7058
DAW: Wecinescizry, August 24, 2005 11:07:42 AM
Please Deliver as Soon as Possible T0:
RECIPIENT: Dan Esricic, Peter Koiovos, Greg Teran, Kate Saxton
C()M[>,i_N3_’; Wiimer Cutler Pickering Hale & Door LLP
Fix No.: 1-611526-$000
Pnone No.: 1-617-526-6493
T 01:11 1iumbe1;‘0i`peges including this page: O3
Commmws:
IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL OUR FAX OPERATOR AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, 1`I·§.AN}{ YOU.
$12558-5948
The infonntttiori container} in this fttesimiie message is ztttomey privileged amd conlitieitliul i.t1i`¤r·ninI.i¤n intended only for the use of the
individuui or entity named above. if tin: reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it
tothe intended recipient. you are hereby notiiied that any dissemination. distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohiiiited,
if you have received this commzuiicetien in error. please immediately notify us by telephone, and return the originM message to us at the
above address via the U,S. Postui Service, Tlirmk you.
wimwn éaédhdtlig-cv—OO6é§fi10%OO5Di>i:uiiigent O%i1éliO(?8/31lif0l)§°Sfl6€i£]§e 3 of 4
Wl N STON de STR;-&Wâ€N` LLP
43 RUE DU RHONE 35 ‘u'JEST WACKER DRIVE ZDO PARK AVENUE
tam GENEVA. BWETZERMND gH|gAG,g_ ELUNDE 595;;].Wgg NEW YORK. NEW YORK 10186-41%
SUCKLEFCSBUFIY HOUSE Et AVENUE VICTOR HUGO
s ousuu vrcronux smear (M?} 55B·5$¤U rsrzc mms, Fumes
LONDON EC4N BNN -»-.-. ~·-~·~·~·-···
use rm. GRAND erm er e¤~·m ..sISé.&‘f.:-£,â€Â§Â§SLtd?fE§' .1..5¤ ..
L09 ANGEIES, DNJFUFKNEA BDHTT--1543 """""""""' ····························
WWh'a’.\U'll'l5lDf§.tZ0§’l1 {THD K STHEEIZ N.W.
WASHINGTUN. ELC. ZBDOE-3857
WRiTEFl`B INHEGT Di/kt. NUMBER
3l2-5583058
mnutter(@winston.oom
August 24, 2005
BY FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL
Daniel NL Esriok, Esq.
Peter J. Kolovos, Esq.
Gregory P., Teran, Esq,
Kate Saxton, Esq.
Wrtmen Curran Prcrceruuo Haus & Doon, LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA O2} 09
Rc: Ceghalon, Inc., et srl. v. Barr Laboratories @0. BS~29—JJF[
Dear Dan:
I write in response to your August l7°h letter requesting that Barr return the
identified documents that were ostensibly inadvertently produced. Pursuant to Paragraph 16(b)
of the Protective Order, Barr does not believe it is required to comply with your request for the
following reasons-
First, based on the sheer volume of documents identified in your letter, it is clear
to us that their production was not “inadvertent." In determining whether a document has lost its
privilege through inadvertent disclosure, the court may consider me following factors: (1) the
reasonableness ofthe precautions taken to prevent inadvertent disclosure in view of the extent of
the document production; (2) the number of inadvertent disclosures; (3) the extent oi` the
disclosure; (4) any delay and measures taken to rectify the disclosure; and (5) whether the
overriding interests of justice would or would not be served by relieving a party of its error.
McGreevy v. CSS Irzdustries, Inc, I996 WL 4i.28l3 (E.D.Pa. July 17, 1996) (citing Hartford
Fire Insurerrces Company v. Garvey, 109 FRU. 3323, 3324 (N,D,Cal, 1985). lu this instance,
Plaintiffs disclosed approximately titty-two (52) pages of allegedly privileged material, which
have been identified as approximately wuenty-seven (27) separate documents. The inadvertent
wimt°n éagélclafiig-cv—OO§é§flJ<1i2:0O5D2>i>Upr?ent U%2lé8O(§8/31?26{O§9T]£§?a°€je 4 of 4
WESTON & STRAWN LLP
Dm1ielM. Esrick, Esq.
August 24, 2005
Page 2
disclosure nf so many documents demonstrates that inadequate prcczmtions were taken by
Plaintiffsn A iarge number of inadvertent disclosures in ccmpzuiscm to the number uf documents
reviewed, shows lax, careless, and inadequate procedures McGreevey at *3 (citing Eigenimm
Bank ve Hugverrx, 598 F. Suppr 983 (S.DmN.Y. 1984).
Second, based upon the types ofducuments identified in your August 17m latter, it
appears PlaimiH’s were less than diligent in guarding against disclosure. Most of these
documents me correspondence OH law Erm 1et£erheacL As such, these documents are clearly and
easily identifnabic as a potentially privileged communication See Advanced Medical, Incn v.
Arden Meica! Sys, Inc., 1988 WL 76128 at *3 (E`D.Pa“ Juiy 18, 1988) (im assessing care
exercise 10 protect privilege, cuurts may consider whether disclosed documents reveal on their
face that they contain privileged material).
Third, the extent of disclosure also supports a Ending that ihe disclosed
documcmfs are no longer shielded by the attorney-client privilege. Bam·’s counsel has aircady
had the opportunity to digest the privileged information. Thus, the disclosure is already
cumpiete. Id (issue is whether opposing panty "has learned the ‘gist’ of the d0cumeut’s
c011tcnts"}.
F or the foregoing feasons, Bar: believes that any privilege that may have applied
to the mferenccd documents and documents pertaining to the same subject matter has been
waived. Accordingly, it is Bau:1·’s position that the documents need not be returned absent a court
order. If Plaintiffs disagree with Bzu:r's position, we ask that Plaintiffs provide us with a letter
explaining the basis for such disagreement.
Best regards, §
Michael K. _T;T11tTér
cc: Geurge C. Lombardi
Bradley Cn Gmveliue
Icsy W. Ingersoll
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms