Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-01564-KAJ Document 28 Filed 06/O9/2005 Page 1 of 2
YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
EEE? ZEJQERGW ii8m`EE$E`fZ°E THE BRANDYWINE BUILDING H AHIQEIIQQUNG
S . N. S I M WP. D I
RY§E$A. LQGZEER $éB`YI”i. Iiatrm 1000 WEST STREET, 17TH FLOOR A JAMES CGNAWAY. IK
RIOHARD A. ZAPPA JOHN T. DORSEY *947*990
FREDERICK W. toast VVILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801 WILLIAM F_ TAYLOR
RIcI·LARD H. MORSE — l9S,(_2O0,,
DAVID C. MCBRIDE
_Io55I>I~I M_ NI(;I·IoI_50N ATHANASIOS E. AGELAKOPOULOS
CRAIG A. IeARsNIT2 JOSEPH M. BARRY P_Q_ BOX 39]
BARRY M. \VILLOUGI-[BY KEVIN M. BAIRD STUART B_ yOUNG
Josv W. INGERSOLL SEAN M- BEACH WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19899-0391 EDWARD E. MAXWELL, 2ND
A=·"¤’ G FLYNJ TIMOTHY P- CAMS SHELDON A. WEINSTEIN
JEROME K GROSSMM 0;: COUNSEL
it3§?t.‘§s.’€i§’tt£?§l£’ E.»aEDt·.m <302>>vI—66c>¤ _____
ROBERT L. THOMAS IAN S. Fwnsnrcrcs (NI & PA ONLY) (800) 253·2234 (DE ONLY)
\VlLLlA.\i D. JOHNSTON DANIEU-EGIBBS FAX_ 302 -71 12-3 JOHN D. MCLAUGHLIN, JR.
TIMOTHY j_ SNYDER SEAN T. GREECHER ‘ ( ) 3 " J ELENA C. NORMAN (NY ONLY)
BRUCE L. SILvERsTEIN RARA S. HAMMOND SPECIAL COUNSEL
\VILLlA.\l W. BOWS ER DAWN M. JONEs ,
Laggy I rmsgrggg RICHARD S. JULIE (NY ONLY) WRITER S DIRECT DIAL NUMBERS _,.
, , KAREN E. KELLER . - _
?;g§§RTO JK JENNIFER M. KINI CASSANDRA F. ROBERTS EDWARD J. KOSMO\\'SI{1 FAX: (302) J76-3326 H 0 WEST PNE STREET
RICHARD J.A. PORPER JOHN C. KUFFEL (MD ONLY) ‘
Tgggga A_ CREEK TIMOTHY E. LENGKEEK P·O· BOX 59*
NEILLIMuLLmIvALsH M-AT“l`HEWB· I-MAN E-MAIL: [email protected] GEORGETO“'N· DELMVARE *99*7
JANET Z. CHARLTON JOSEPH A. MALFITANO (302) 856-3 571
RGBERT BRADY (soo) zss-2234 (DE ONLY)
;l{;\lI·’FER MICHAEL W MODERNIOTT FAX: (302) 8563338
DANIEL P. JOHNSON MA'l'I`HE\\’ B. MOGIJIRE
CRAIG D. GREAR MARIBETH L. MTNELLA
TIMOTHY JAY HOUSEAL EDMON L. MORTON
BRENDAN LINEHAN SHANNON JENNIFER R NOEL
MARTIN S. LESSNER JOHN J. PASCHEITO
PAULINE IL MORGAN \\1;;EI;§§;BERG
FRANCIS J. SCl·L-\NNE 99
LISA B. GOODMAN MICHAEL P. STAFFORD
JOHN W. SHAW JOHN E. TRAGEY
JAMES P. HUGHES, JR. ALFRED VILLOCH, III
EDWIN J. I-IARRON CHRISTIAN DOUGLAS WRIGHT
MIOHAEL R. NESTOR SHARON M. ZIEG
BY ELECTRONIC FILING
The Honorable Kent A. Jordan
United States District Court
844 N. King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Mayize Pharma (USA) Inc. v. American Pharmaceutical Parmers, [nc., et al.
U.S. Dist. Ct. C.A. No. 04-1564-KAJ
Dear Judge Jordan:
On behalf of plaintiff, Mayne Pharma (USA) Inc., we respectfully request that the Court
schedule a Rule 16 conference to set a discovery schedule in this case. Counsel for defendant
American Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc. ("APP") has ignored plaintiffs efforts to meet and
confer conceming discovery pursuant to Rule 26(f), and has thereby prevented any discovery,
based presumably on the ground that it has filed a partial motion to dismiss a small minority of
the claims.
Discovery should be permitted to proceed, despite the pending motion, because
substantially the same discovery will be needed from APP regardless of whether the partial
motion to dismiss is granted. There is therefore no just reason for delay. To the contrary,
plaintiff is incurring substantial irreparable competitive harm Hom not being able to supply
certain drugs to the market, in competition with APP, as a result of the wrongful conduct
challenged by the Complaint. Such harms will be exacerbated by any delay in obtaining a
judgment.
WP3:III9502.I

Case 1:04-cv—O1564—KAJ Document 28 Filed 06/O9/2005 Page 2 of 2
Yomvo CoNAwAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
The Honorable Kent A. Jordan
J une 9, 2005
Page 2
The set of claims that is challenged by the pending motion and the set that is not so
challenged address substantially the same facts, but with different legal theories. The facts
concern APP’s acquisition from defendants Bigmar Inc. and Bigmar—Bioren Pharmaceuticals,
S.A. (together "Bigmar") of a manufacturing facility that Bigmar used to supply certain late-
stage cancer drugs to plaintiff.} The acquisition, together with APP’s failure subsequently to
honor Bigmar’s supply contracts, precluded plaintiff from obtaining the drugs and therefore from
competing with APP in the markets for these drugs. All claims against APP, regardless of
whether they are a subject of the pending motion to dismiss, challenge the propriety of the
acquisition and/ or seek to hold APP liable for breach of the supply contracts.
The claims that are not subjects ofthe motion to dismiss challenge the acquisition as a
violation of the federal antitrust laws, while the claims that are subjects of the motion challenge
the transaction as a fraudulent conveyance. Similarly, the claims that are not subjects of the
motion seek to hold APP liable for breach of the supply contracts on the ground that APP
tortiously interfered with Bigmar°s performance of the contracts, while the claims that are
subjects of the motion seek to hold APP liable for breach of the contracts on the ground that APP
was a successor to Bigmar under the contracts. Both sets of claims require discovery concerning
the circumstances surrounding the acquisition, the supply contracts and APP’s relationship to the
contracts.
The motion to dismiss, even if granted, therefore should have little impact on the
discovery needed in this case. There being no significant prejudice to APP from proceeding with
discovery, and substantial prejudice to plaintiff from delaying it, APP should not be permitted to
delay this proceeding by means of its motion to dismiss only a few of the claims that address
substantially the same facts with different legal theories.
Respectfully sub itted,
Adam W. Poff (# 990)
AWP
cc: Clerk of the Court
Thomas C. Grimm, Esquire
I Bigmar has defaulted in this proceeding and is now a subject of a request for entry of default.
WP3:l l 19502.1