SlideShare uma empresa Scribd logo
1 de 11
Baixar para ler offline
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                           DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
____________________________________
                                      )
IN RE: NEW ENGLAND                    )    Master Docket No. 12-cv-12052-FDS
COMPOUNDING PHARMACY CASES )
____________________________________)
                                      )
This Document Relates To:             )
                                      )
CHAD GREEN,                           )
                                      )
       Plaintiff,                     )
                                      )    Civil Action No. 12-12121-FDS
v.                                    )
                                      )
NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING               )
PHARMACY, INC.                        )
                                      )
               Defendant.             )
____________________________________)

    ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ADOPT STATE COURT ORDERS
 GRANTING MOTION TO PERMIT INSPECTION OF PREMISES OF DEFENDANT

                                        December 10, 2012

Boal, M.J.

         Plaintiff Chad Green seeks an expedited opportunity to enter the facility of defendant

New England Compounding Pharmacy, Inc. (“NECC”) at 697 Waverly Street, Framingham,

Massachusetts (the “Facility”), and conduct various inspections and tests at that location. The

District Court referred that motion to the undersigned on November 29, 2012. Docket No. 59.1

For the following reasons, the Court grants the motion within the parameters set forth in this

order.


         1
        Unless otherwise specified, references to docket numbers refer to the Master Docket
No. 12-12052-FDS.

                                                 -1-
I.     Factual and Procedural Background

       On November 29, 2012, the District Court consolidated, for pre-trial purposes only,

various personal injury cases against defendants NECC, Ameridose LLC, Medical Sales

Management, Inc., Barry Cadden, Lisa Conigliaro Cadden, Gregory Conigliaro, Douglas

Conigliaro, Carla Conigliaro, and Glenn A. Chin, or some subset or combination of those

defendants. Docket No. 57. The cases arise out of an outbreak of fungal meningitis in at least

19 states, which has sickened approximately 419 people and caused approximately 30 deaths.

See, e.g., Chad Green Complaint2 at ¶ 1. The plaintiffs allege that the outbreak originated from

medication compounded by NECC. Id. Plaintiffs allege that the United States Food and Drug

Administration (“FDA”) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) have

“implicated” NECC as the cause of the injuries and deaths. Id. at ¶ 2. According to plaintiffs,

NECC’s facilities were unsterile and replete with fungus that contaminated the vials holding the

medications. Id.

       The United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts and its law enforcement

partners are actively investigating allegations concerning NECC. Docket No. 84 at 1. Other

federal, state and possibly local public health authorities may also be investigating NECC.

Docket No. 59 at 2. In addition, NECC is engaged in a recall of its products. Id.

       Plaintiff Chad Green filed his complaint in the Massachusetts Superior Court on

November 6, 2012. Green Docket3 No. 14 at 50. The Defendants removed the case to this Court


       2
      Chad Green v. New England Compounding Pharmacy, Inc., d/b/a New England
Compounding Center, No. 12-cv-12121-FDS (D. Mass.), Docket No. 1-1.
       3
       “Green Docket” refers to the docket of Chad Green v. New England Compounding
Pharmacy, Inc., d/b/a New England Compounding Center, No. 12-cv-12121-FDS (D. Mass.).

                                               -2-
on November 14, 2012. Green Docket No. 1.

       Prior to the removal of Green’s complaint to this Court, the Massachusetts Superior

Court granted his ex parte emergency motion for inspection of the premises. Green Docket No.

14 at 13, 50. The order contained no restrictions on any such inspection. The case was removed

to this Court before Green carried out the inspection. On November 20, 2012, Green filed a

motion asking this Court to adopt the order of the Massachusetts court allowing the inspection.

Green Docket No. 7. On November 29, 2012, the District Court vacated the order entered by the

Massachusetts Superior Court granting plaintiff’s motion to inspect the premises and referred

Green’s motion to adopt that order to the undersigned. Docket No. 59.

       This Court issued a scheduling order on November 30, 2012. Docket No. 60. Pursuant

to that scheduling order, Green, NECC and the United States4 filed written submissions to the

Court regarding Green’s request for an expedited inspection. Docket Nos. 72, 84, 86. Both

Green and NECC submitted expert affidavits to support their respective positions.5 Docket Nos.

72-1, 86-1. The Court heard oral argument on December 6, 2012.

II.    Analysis

       Green seeks an expedited inspection of the Facility. Green listed the tests to be



       4
         Given the proposed inspection’s potential effects on the ongoing investigations and/or
the performance by public health authorities of their statutory and regulatory duties, the Court
invited federal and state authorities to file submissions and/or to attend the December 6, 2012
hearing. Docket No. 60. The United States filed a statement on December 5, 2012 (Docket No.
84) and attended the hearing. A representative from the Framingham Board of Health appeared
at the hearing and stated that it had no objection to an inspection. Otherwise, no state or local
authorities filed any papers or appeared at the hearing.
       5
           Plaintiffs Lance Martin and Toby Martin concurred with Green’s request. Docket No.
88.

                                               -3-
performed, see Docket No. 72 at 11-12, and stated at oral argument that the tests could be

completed in four days. As set forth by the District Court, the resolution of Green’s request for

an expedited inspection is complicated by a number of factors, including:

       1.      The NECC facility has apparently been the subject of extensive
               investigation, testing, and other actions by federal, state, and possibly
               local public health authorities. Those investigations appear to be ongoing.
               It is unclear whether the proposed inspection and testing might interfere
               with the performance by public health authorities of their statutory and
               regulatory duties. For obvious reasons, the discovery process in this case
               must yield, when necessary, to the protection of the public health.

       2.      The Court understands that NECC is engaged in a recall of its products. It
               is likewise unclear whether the proposed inspection and testing might
               interfere with or affect that process.

       3.      Green contends that the testing and sampling at issue is time-sensitive, in
               that he seeks to ascertain the current presence of bacteria, mold,
               particulate matter, and other contaminants. It is unclear whether such
               testing undertaken now would produce scientifically meaningful evidence
               as to conditions at the facility at the relevant time.

Docket No. 59 at 2. In addition, cases against NECC are now pending in various federal and

state courts, with more likely to be filed. A motion for transfer and consolidation seeking to

coordinate these actions for pretrial discovery and proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a)

is currently pending before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. See Docket No. 13 at

2; Docket No. 57 at 3.

       At oral argument, NECC conceded that Green is entitled to an inspection. However,

NECC opposes the inspection because it believes that the passage of time since the relevant

events would render any testing scientifically invalid. Docket No. 86 at 5-9. Somewhat

contradictorily, NECC also argues that an inspection is premature and unfair to the myriad other

plaintiffs who may assert claims against NECC. Id. at 4-5. NECC further argues that an


                                                -4-
inspection at this time would interfere with government investigations and its efforts to preserve

evidence. Id. at 5.6

       The United States does not oppose an inspection of the Facility but requests that any

order authorizing entry and testing incorporate certain restrictions in order to avoid

compromising the government’s ongoing investigation. Docket No. 84. Green has agreed to the

United States’ proposed restrictions.

       For the following reasons, the Court will allow Green to perform an inspection subject to

the parameters set forth in this order.

       A.      Early Discovery

       Green seeks early discovery. Rule 26(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

provides that: “[e]xcept . . . when authorized under these rules or by order or agreement of the

parties, a party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as

required by Rule 26(f).” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(d). In order for a party to obtain expedited discovery

before the Rule 26(f) conference, it must show good cause. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). The First

Circuit has not addressed the proper standard for determining whether good cause exists for

expedited discovery.

       The Court finds that Green has shown good cause for early discovery, namely an



       6
          During oral argument, NECC brought up for the first time that some of the proposed
testing may affect property that is not owned or controlled by NECC or the other defendants.
Nevertheless, NECC brought forward no specifics or evidence to back up its assertions. Indeed,
it appears that the property where the Facility is located may be owned by entities related to the
defendants in some of these actions. See, e.g., Erkan Complaint at ¶ 24 (the complex where the
Facility is located is “owned by Gregory Conigliaro’s real estate companies, GDC Holdings Inc.
and/or GDC Properties Management LLC.”). Accordingly, the Court does not find this
argument persuasive.

                                                -5-
inspection.7 Time is of the essence. Several months have passed since the relevant events and

the passage of time will only make it more difficult for Green to obtain scientifically valid

information.

       B.      Standard of Review

       “Discovery procedures set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seek to further

the interests of justice by minimizing surprise at trial and ensuring wide-ranging discovery of

information.” Cartel Asset Mgmt. v. Ocwen Fin. Corp., No. 01-cv-01644, 2010 WL 502721, *9

(D. Colo. Feb. 8, 2010) (citing United States ex rel. Schwartz v. TRW, Inc., 211 F.R.D. 388, 392

(C.D. Cal. 2002)). To that end, Rule 26(b) permits “discovery regarding any nonprivileged

matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense . . .” or discovery of any information that

“appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(b). Rule 26(b)(1) generally permits liberal discovery of relevant information. Baker v.

Liggett Group, Inc., 132 F.R.D. 123, 125 (D. Mass. 1990). As the Supreme Court has instructed,

because “discovery itself is designed to help define and clarify the issues,” the limits set forth in

Rule 26 must be “construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably

could lead to other matters that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.”

Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978).

       There are limits, however, on the scope of discovery. A court must limit discovery if it

determines that the discovery sought is (1) unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is

obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive;


       7
          At oral argument, Green also sought permission to interview NECC employees. This
order authorizes an inspection only. All other discovery must at this stage follow the ordinary
civil discovery process.

                                                 -6-
(2) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by discovery in the action to obtain

the information sought; or (3) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its

likely benefit, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’

resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation, and the importance of the

projected discovery in resolving the issues. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C).

       Subject to the limits imposed by Rule 26, Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

allows a party “entry onto designated land or other property possessed or controlled by the

responding party, so that the requesting party may inspect, measure, survey, photograph, test, or

sample the property or any designated object or operation on it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(2).

Because entry upon a party’s premises may engender greater burdens and risks than other forms

of discovery, at least one Circuit has recognized the need for a more searching inquiry into the

necessity for inspection. See Belcher v. Bassett Furniture Indus. Inc., 588 F.2d 904, 908 (4th

Cir. 1978).

       When an inspection will involve destructive testing,8 courts generally consider four

factors in determining whether to allow the testing: (1) whether the proposed testing is

reasonable, necessary, and relevant to proving the movant’s case; (2) whether the non-movant’s

ability to present evidence at trial will be hindered, or whether the non-movant will be

prejudiced in some other way; (3) whether there are any less prejudicial alternative methods of

obtaining the evidence sought; and (4) whether there are adequate safeguards to minimize

prejudice to the non-movant, particularly the non-movant’s ability to present evidence at trial.



       8
         Destructive testing is testing that results in alteration or destruction. Bostic v. Ammar’s,
Inc., No. 03-146-ART, 2011 WL 251009, at *2 n. 4 (E.D. Ky. Jan. 26, 2011).

                                                 -7-
See Garcia v. Aartman Transport Corp., No. 4:08 cv 77, 2011 WL 665451, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Feb.

14, 2011) (citing Mirchandani v. Home Depot, USA, Inc., 235 F.R.D. 611, 614 (D. Md. 2006));

Bostic v. Ammar’s, Inc., No. 03-146-ART, 2011 WL 251009, at * 3 (E.D. Ky. Jan. 26, 2011)

(citing Mirchandani, 235 F.R.D. at 614).

       C.      The Inspection Is Reasonably Calculated To Lead
               To The Discovery Of Admissible Evidence

       NECC argues that the inspection and tests proposed by Green constitute an exercise in

futility and would not lead to the discovery of relevant or reliable evidence. Docket No. 86 at 6.

According to NECC and its expert, none of the tests proposed by Green are capable of providing

scientifically reliable data regarding the means by which the lots of medication at issue may have

been contaminated or can reliably pinpoint the date of the alleged contamination. Id.

       Green, on the other hand, argues that his expert is able to identify the age of mold

through scientifically valid analysis supported in well-respected literature. Docket No. 72 at 15.

He also argues that collection of samples would allow his experts to create and evaluate a data

set of samples to determine whether an area has had a consistent presence of fungal spores or

not. Id. Finally, an inspection will allow Green to determine whether the Facility complies with

standards for pharmaceutical compounding. Id. at 15-16.

       The Court finds that the inspection is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence. Whether or not the inspection and testing will lead to reliable evidence is

best left for a Daubert challenge or a challenge to the weight of the evidence at trial. Indeed,

NECC concedes that the proposed testing may determine the existence and concentration of

mold at the facility at present. Docket No. 86 at 6. If, for example, Green’s experts are able to

locate the fungus that was in the recalled vials of NECC’s product in one or more locations at the

                                                -8-
Facility, that evidence would certainly be relevant even if it is not dispositive of the issue.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Green is entitled to an inspection at this time.

       D.      Destructive Testing

       Green proposes to conduct some “minimally invasive” testing, such as “sampling of wall,

roof, ceiling and foundational assemblies and cavities, interior mechanical systems, including,

but not limited to HVAC systems and its ductwork and plumbing systems,” sampling of edging

of carpeting and testing of the clean room. Docket No. 72 at 12. After consideration of the

parties’ submissions and arguments, the Court finds that such testing appears to be reasonable,

necessary and relevant; that there are no adequate alternative methods to obtain the information;

that the defendants will not be prejudiced; and there are adequate safeguards to minimize the

prejudice to the defendants, such as allowing the defendants and their expert to attend the

inspection, to allow them to perform similar tests or take their own samples if they so desire, and

to provide them with the results of any tests performed.

       Nevertheless, the Court is cognizant that destructive testing may affect the ongoing

government investigation. Accordingly, Green must confer with the United States regarding

protocols for any destructive testing.

       E.      Parameters Of The Inspection

       Having found that an inspection is appropriate in this case,9 the Court orders Green to

confer with other plaintiffs, the defendants, and the United States in an attempt to agree on a



       9
          At oral argument, NECC’s counsel argued that under certain circumstances, this Court’s
order could restrict the rights of any potential defendants in a criminal case. To be clear, this
order applies only to the civil cases before this Court and is not intended to have any effect to
restrict the rights of any potential criminal defendants.

                                                 -9-
protocol for the inspection. If the parties are unable to agree on a protocol, each of them shall

file its own proposed order and protocol for inspection. Any such protocol(s) shall be filed with

the Court no later than the close of business on Friday, December 14, 2012.

       To aid the parties in the development of an inspection protocol, the Court sets the

following parameters:

       1.      Any inspection and testing pursuant to this Order must be completed in four

               business days or less and no further entry into the Facility for purposes of testing

               will be allowed after the four-day period absent good cause shown. The parties

               shall confer and attempt to agree on the dates of the inspection and testing.

       2.      Green, his attorneys and/or his expert(s) may enter the Facility only with prior

               notice to the United States and in the company of one or more representatives of

               the Office of the United States Attorney and/or federal law enforcement. All

               testing, examination and inspection shall occur under the supervision of such

               representatives.

       3.      Any party’s inspection and testing shall under no circumstances extend to drugs

               or packages of drugs that are presently located at the NECC Facility following

               return by customers and/or pickup and processing by federal agencies, and under

               no circumstances shall the parties remove any drugs from the Facility for testing

               or otherwise.

       4.      Any party’s inspection or testing shall not extend to the interior of any locked

               drug vault at the NECC Facility.

       5.      The defendants and/or their expert(s) may be present during the inspection and


                                                -10-
may also take samples for their own testing.

6.   Green shall share the results of testing with the other plaintiffs, the defendants,

     and any federal or state authorities that request results.

7.   Green shall share the results of testing with any future plaintiffs. Future plaintiffs

     shall not be entitled to perform their own inspection absent good cause.

8.   Green shall advise the United States with specificity of the nature and subject of

     any destructive testing, including cleaning the Facility, and shall attempt to reach

     an agreement with the United States regarding any such testing.



                                    /s/ Jennifer C. Boal
                                    JENNIFER C. BOAL
                                    United States Magistrate Judge




                                      -11-

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Milward -first_circuit
Milward  -first_circuitMilward  -first_circuit
Milward -first_circuitmzamoralaw
 
Defendants reply brief in support of defendants’ motion to dismiss action for...
Defendants reply brief in support of defendants’ motion to dismiss action for...Defendants reply brief in support of defendants’ motion to dismiss action for...
Defendants reply brief in support of defendants’ motion to dismiss action for...Cocoselul Inaripat
 
Lincare HIPAA remediated decision by administrative judge
Lincare HIPAA remediated decision by administrative judgeLincare HIPAA remediated decision by administrative judge
Lincare HIPAA remediated decision by administrative judgedata brackets
 
The Myriad Appeal
The Myriad AppealThe Myriad Appeal
The Myriad Appealattwell
 
judicialopinion-writingsample
judicialopinion-writingsamplejudicialopinion-writingsample
judicialopinion-writingsampleRoss Gipson
 
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge V. Stuart Couch from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge V. Stuart Couch from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016BIA Remands of Immigration Judge V. Stuart Couch from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge V. Stuart Couch from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016Bryan Johnson
 
How to file motion for new trial 07142015
How to file motion for new trial 07142015How to file motion for new trial 07142015
How to file motion for new trial 07142015screaminc
 
Agresearch Court Of Appeal
Agresearch Court Of AppealAgresearch Court Of Appeal
Agresearch Court Of Appealpetergnz
 
20060804_Hilton_Hotels_Answering_Brief
20060804_Hilton_Hotels_Answering_Brief20060804_Hilton_Hotels_Answering_Brief
20060804_Hilton_Hotels_Answering_BriefSheri Ann Forbes
 
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge James Nugent from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge James Nugent from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016BIA Remands of Immigration Judge James Nugent from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge James Nugent from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016Bryan Johnson
 
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge Theresa Holmes-Simmons from 01/01/2014 to 05...
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge Theresa Holmes-Simmons from 01/01/2014 to 05...BIA Remands of Immigration Judge Theresa Holmes-Simmons from 01/01/2014 to 05...
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge Theresa Holmes-Simmons from 01/01/2014 to 05...Bryan Johnson
 
Darvocet ordergenerics
Darvocet ordergenericsDarvocet ordergenerics
Darvocet ordergenericsmzamoralaw
 
Recro vs Actavis Zohydro Case Memorandum - Filed 02/22/17
Recro vs Actavis Zohydro Case Memorandum - Filed 02/22/17Recro vs Actavis Zohydro Case Memorandum - Filed 02/22/17
Recro vs Actavis Zohydro Case Memorandum - Filed 02/22/17Andrew Cunningham
 

Mais procurados (18)

Milward -first_circuit
Milward  -first_circuitMilward  -first_circuit
Milward -first_circuit
 
Goodcat v State of Indiana
Goodcat v State of IndianaGoodcat v State of Indiana
Goodcat v State of Indiana
 
Doc.89
Doc.89Doc.89
Doc.89
 
Defendants reply brief in support of defendants’ motion to dismiss action for...
Defendants reply brief in support of defendants’ motion to dismiss action for...Defendants reply brief in support of defendants’ motion to dismiss action for...
Defendants reply brief in support of defendants’ motion to dismiss action for...
 
Lincare HIPAA remediated decision by administrative judge
Lincare HIPAA remediated decision by administrative judgeLincare HIPAA remediated decision by administrative judge
Lincare HIPAA remediated decision by administrative judge
 
The Myriad Appeal
The Myriad AppealThe Myriad Appeal
The Myriad Appeal
 
judicialopinion-writingsample
judicialopinion-writingsamplejudicialopinion-writingsample
judicialopinion-writingsample
 
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge V. Stuart Couch from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge V. Stuart Couch from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016BIA Remands of Immigration Judge V. Stuart Couch from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge V. Stuart Couch from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016
 
3a fig3.1
3a fig3.13a fig3.1
3a fig3.1
 
How to file motion for new trial 07142015
How to file motion for new trial 07142015How to file motion for new trial 07142015
How to file motion for new trial 07142015
 
Agresearch Court Of Appeal
Agresearch Court Of AppealAgresearch Court Of Appeal
Agresearch Court Of Appeal
 
20060804_Hilton_Hotels_Answering_Brief
20060804_Hilton_Hotels_Answering_Brief20060804_Hilton_Hotels_Answering_Brief
20060804_Hilton_Hotels_Answering_Brief
 
B245114 cpr marina
B245114 cpr marinaB245114 cpr marina
B245114 cpr marina
 
Doc. 131
Doc. 131Doc. 131
Doc. 131
 
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge James Nugent from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge James Nugent from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016BIA Remands of Immigration Judge James Nugent from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge James Nugent from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016
 
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge Theresa Holmes-Simmons from 01/01/2014 to 05...
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge Theresa Holmes-Simmons from 01/01/2014 to 05...BIA Remands of Immigration Judge Theresa Holmes-Simmons from 01/01/2014 to 05...
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge Theresa Holmes-Simmons from 01/01/2014 to 05...
 
Darvocet ordergenerics
Darvocet ordergenericsDarvocet ordergenerics
Darvocet ordergenerics
 
Recro vs Actavis Zohydro Case Memorandum - Filed 02/22/17
Recro vs Actavis Zohydro Case Memorandum - Filed 02/22/17Recro vs Actavis Zohydro Case Memorandum - Filed 02/22/17
Recro vs Actavis Zohydro Case Memorandum - Filed 02/22/17
 

Destaque

Academic+Professional Practice
Academic+Professional PracticeAcademic+Professional Practice
Academic+Professional PracticeAliHeshmati
 
Tech in litigationfinalmarch18
Tech in litigationfinalmarch18Tech in litigationfinalmarch18
Tech in litigationfinalmarch18mzamoralaw
 
Palace North Entry Retail
Palace North Entry   RetailPalace North Entry   Retail
Palace North Entry RetailT B
 
Harvard Business School: Alumnus Experience Sharing Forum
Harvard Business School: Alumnus Experience Sharing ForumHarvard Business School: Alumnus Experience Sharing Forum
Harvard Business School: Alumnus Experience Sharing Forumkuenwei
 
Spanish Psa Rbuckson Slabron Lcoteh Danielc
Spanish Psa Rbuckson Slabron Lcoteh DanielcSpanish Psa Rbuckson Slabron Lcoteh Danielc
Spanish Psa Rbuckson Slabron Lcoteh Danielcguest59bb6e98
 

Destaque (7)

Academic+Professional Practice
Academic+Professional PracticeAcademic+Professional Practice
Academic+Professional Practice
 
Tech in litigationfinalmarch18
Tech in litigationfinalmarch18Tech in litigationfinalmarch18
Tech in litigationfinalmarch18
 
La Vita
La VitaLa Vita
La Vita
 
Palace North Entry Retail
Palace North Entry   RetailPalace North Entry   Retail
Palace North Entry Retail
 
Harvard Business School: Alumnus Experience Sharing Forum
Harvard Business School: Alumnus Experience Sharing ForumHarvard Business School: Alumnus Experience Sharing Forum
Harvard Business School: Alumnus Experience Sharing Forum
 
Native 11 Maps (1)
Native 11 Maps (1)Native 11 Maps (1)
Native 11 Maps (1)
 
Spanish Psa Rbuckson Slabron Lcoteh Danielc
Spanish Psa Rbuckson Slabron Lcoteh DanielcSpanish Psa Rbuckson Slabron Lcoteh Danielc
Spanish Psa Rbuckson Slabron Lcoteh Danielc
 

Semelhante a 60 Minutes and New England Compounding Pharmacy

Judge Saylor Order in NECP MDL regarding Transfer of PI Cases to Boston
Judge Saylor Order in NECP MDL regarding Transfer of PI Cases to Boston Judge Saylor Order in NECP MDL regarding Transfer of PI Cases to Boston
Judge Saylor Order in NECP MDL regarding Transfer of PI Cases to Boston mzamoralaw
 
Mdl 2767-initial transfer-03-17 (1)
Mdl 2767-initial transfer-03-17 (1)Mdl 2767-initial transfer-03-17 (1)
Mdl 2767-initial transfer-03-17 (1)mzamoralaw
 
PruvIt Ventures VS ForeverGreen International Lawsuit filed
PruvIt Ventures VS ForeverGreen International Lawsuit filedPruvIt Ventures VS ForeverGreen International Lawsuit filed
PruvIt Ventures VS ForeverGreen International Lawsuit filedPruvit
 
Nestlehutt Order Ga Caps
Nestlehutt Order Ga CapsNestlehutt Order Ga Caps
Nestlehutt Order Ga Capsmzamoralaw
 
City Trading Fund v. Nye Order (Feb. 8, 2018)
City Trading Fund v. Nye Order (Feb. 8, 2018)City Trading Fund v. Nye Order (Feb. 8, 2018)
City Trading Fund v. Nye Order (Feb. 8, 2018)M. Frank Bednarz
 
Usa v dotcom
Usa v dotcomUsa v dotcom
Usa v dotcomidrent
 
Chevron Case: Re 20 - Public - Andrade Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)
Chevron Case: Re 20 - Public - Andrade Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)Chevron Case: Re 20 - Public - Andrade Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)
Chevron Case: Re 20 - Public - Andrade Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)Embajada del Ecuador en USA
 
Hawaii County GMO Lawsuit Decision
Hawaii County GMO Lawsuit DecisionHawaii County GMO Lawsuit Decision
Hawaii County GMO Lawsuit DecisionHonolulu Civil Beat
 
Good legal verbiage defendants objection on the grounds of relevancy-california
Good legal verbiage defendants objection on the grounds of relevancy-californiaGood legal verbiage defendants objection on the grounds of relevancy-california
Good legal verbiage defendants objection on the grounds of relevancy-californiascreaminc
 
Sample California motion to vacate default judgment for extrinsic fraud or mi...
Sample California motion to vacate default judgment for extrinsic fraud or mi...Sample California motion to vacate default judgment for extrinsic fraud or mi...
Sample California motion to vacate default judgment for extrinsic fraud or mi...LegalDocsPro
 
Motion for new trial -clu 12-19_14_no_51_14
Motion for new trial -clu 12-19_14_no_51_14Motion for new trial -clu 12-19_14_no_51_14
Motion for new trial -clu 12-19_14_no_51_14screaminc
 
Lang van v. Vng Corp - Order granting Vng's motion to dismiss
Lang van v. Vng Corp  - Order granting Vng's motion to dismissLang van v. Vng Corp  - Order granting Vng's motion to dismiss
Lang van v. Vng Corp - Order granting Vng's motion to dismissRobert Scott Lawrence
 
Hieleras ruled deprivation of constitutional rights
Hieleras ruled deprivation of constitutional rightsHieleras ruled deprivation of constitutional rights
Hieleras ruled deprivation of constitutional rightsBryan Johnson
 
A Summary of Managed Pharmacy Care v. Sebelius
A Summary of Managed Pharmacy Care v. SebeliusA Summary of Managed Pharmacy Care v. Sebelius
A Summary of Managed Pharmacy Care v. SebeliusJessica Woods
 

Semelhante a 60 Minutes and New England Compounding Pharmacy (20)

Judge Saylor Order in NECP MDL regarding Transfer of PI Cases to Boston
Judge Saylor Order in NECP MDL regarding Transfer of PI Cases to Boston Judge Saylor Order in NECP MDL regarding Transfer of PI Cases to Boston
Judge Saylor Order in NECP MDL regarding Transfer of PI Cases to Boston
 
Mdl 2767-initial transfer-03-17 (1)
Mdl 2767-initial transfer-03-17 (1)Mdl 2767-initial transfer-03-17 (1)
Mdl 2767-initial transfer-03-17 (1)
 
PruvIt Ventures VS ForeverGreen International Lawsuit filed
PruvIt Ventures VS ForeverGreen International Lawsuit filedPruvIt Ventures VS ForeverGreen International Lawsuit filed
PruvIt Ventures VS ForeverGreen International Lawsuit filed
 
Federal Circuit Review | September 2012
Federal Circuit Review | September 2012Federal Circuit Review | September 2012
Federal Circuit Review | September 2012
 
Nestlehutt Order Ga Caps
Nestlehutt Order Ga CapsNestlehutt Order Ga Caps
Nestlehutt Order Ga Caps
 
City Trading Fund v. Nye Order (Feb. 8, 2018)
City Trading Fund v. Nye Order (Feb. 8, 2018)City Trading Fund v. Nye Order (Feb. 8, 2018)
City Trading Fund v. Nye Order (Feb. 8, 2018)
 
Usa v dotcom
Usa v dotcomUsa v dotcom
Usa v dotcom
 
Chevron Case: Re 20 - Public - Andrade Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)
Chevron Case: Re 20 - Public - Andrade Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)Chevron Case: Re 20 - Public - Andrade Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)
Chevron Case: Re 20 - Public - Andrade Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)
 
Necc removal
Necc removalNecc removal
Necc removal
 
10000000050
1000000005010000000050
10000000050
 
Federal Circuit Review | October 2012
Federal Circuit Review | October 2012Federal Circuit Review | October 2012
Federal Circuit Review | October 2012
 
Discovery
DiscoveryDiscovery
Discovery
 
Ftc national
Ftc nationalFtc national
Ftc national
 
Hawaii County GMO Lawsuit Decision
Hawaii County GMO Lawsuit DecisionHawaii County GMO Lawsuit Decision
Hawaii County GMO Lawsuit Decision
 
Good legal verbiage defendants objection on the grounds of relevancy-california
Good legal verbiage defendants objection on the grounds of relevancy-californiaGood legal verbiage defendants objection on the grounds of relevancy-california
Good legal verbiage defendants objection on the grounds of relevancy-california
 
Sample California motion to vacate default judgment for extrinsic fraud or mi...
Sample California motion to vacate default judgment for extrinsic fraud or mi...Sample California motion to vacate default judgment for extrinsic fraud or mi...
Sample California motion to vacate default judgment for extrinsic fraud or mi...
 
Motion for new trial -clu 12-19_14_no_51_14
Motion for new trial -clu 12-19_14_no_51_14Motion for new trial -clu 12-19_14_no_51_14
Motion for new trial -clu 12-19_14_no_51_14
 
Lang van v. Vng Corp - Order granting Vng's motion to dismiss
Lang van v. Vng Corp  - Order granting Vng's motion to dismissLang van v. Vng Corp  - Order granting Vng's motion to dismiss
Lang van v. Vng Corp - Order granting Vng's motion to dismiss
 
Hieleras ruled deprivation of constitutional rights
Hieleras ruled deprivation of constitutional rightsHieleras ruled deprivation of constitutional rights
Hieleras ruled deprivation of constitutional rights
 
A Summary of Managed Pharmacy Care v. Sebelius
A Summary of Managed Pharmacy Care v. SebeliusA Summary of Managed Pharmacy Care v. Sebelius
A Summary of Managed Pharmacy Care v. Sebelius
 

Mais de mzamoralaw

Wright v marshaw
Wright v marshawWright v marshaw
Wright v marshawmzamoralaw
 
Worley v. YMCA
Worley v. YMCAWorley v. YMCA
Worley v. YMCAmzamoralaw
 
Opinion grossman FL preemptory challenges
Opinion grossman FL preemptory challengesOpinion grossman FL preemptory challenges
Opinion grossman FL preemptory challengesmzamoralaw
 
Judge's ruling on seeling bills to 3rd party
Judge's ruling on seeling bills to 3rd partyJudge's ruling on seeling bills to 3rd party
Judge's ruling on seeling bills to 3rd partymzamoralaw
 
VW Clean Diesel PSC appointments
VW Clean Diesel PSC appointmentsVW Clean Diesel PSC appointments
VW Clean Diesel PSC appointmentsmzamoralaw
 
Lumber Liquidators MDL goes to Alexandria Virginia
Lumber Liquidators MDL goes to Alexandria VirginiaLumber Liquidators MDL goes to Alexandria Virginia
Lumber Liquidators MDL goes to Alexandria Virginiamzamoralaw
 
NEBRASKA TRIAL LAWYERS
NEBRASKA TRIAL LAWYERS NEBRASKA TRIAL LAWYERS
NEBRASKA TRIAL LAWYERS mzamoralaw
 
NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL CEASE AND DESIST LETTER HERBAL PRODUCTS
NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL CEASE AND DESIST LETTER HERBAL PRODUCTSNEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL CEASE AND DESIST LETTER HERBAL PRODUCTS
NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL CEASE AND DESIST LETTER HERBAL PRODUCTSmzamoralaw
 
Nucci Target Social Media Discovery
Nucci Target Social Media DiscoveryNucci Target Social Media Discovery
Nucci Target Social Media Discoverymzamoralaw
 
Trail v. Lesko
Trail v. LeskoTrail v. Lesko
Trail v. Leskomzamoralaw
 
Trail v. lesko (social media discovery)
Trail v. lesko (social media discovery)Trail v. lesko (social media discovery)
Trail v. lesko (social media discovery)mzamoralaw
 
NCAA CONCUSSION MDL, ORDER AND PLAINTIFFS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
NCAA CONCUSSION MDL, ORDER AND PLAINTIFFS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEENCAA CONCUSSION MDL, ORDER AND PLAINTIFFS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
NCAA CONCUSSION MDL, ORDER AND PLAINTIFFS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEEmzamoralaw
 
Schedule of action androgel MDL AND TRANSFER ORDER
Schedule of action androgel MDL AND TRANSFER ORDERSchedule of action androgel MDL AND TRANSFER ORDER
Schedule of action androgel MDL AND TRANSFER ORDERmzamoralaw
 
Morcellator Lawyer Georgia
Morcellator Lawyer GeorgiaMorcellator Lawyer Georgia
Morcellator Lawyer Georgiamzamoralaw
 
First LowT Complaint filed in Georgia Punitive Damages
First LowT Complaint filed in Georgia Punitive DamagesFirst LowT Complaint filed in Georgia Punitive Damages
First LowT Complaint filed in Georgia Punitive Damagesmzamoralaw
 
Trial 2014 3_mar_dougherty, bruera_reprint
Trial 2014 3_mar_dougherty, bruera_reprintTrial 2014 3_mar_dougherty, bruera_reprint
Trial 2014 3_mar_dougherty, bruera_reprintmzamoralaw
 

Mais de mzamoralaw (20)

Ladue
LadueLadue
Ladue
 
MGM Complaint
MGM ComplaintMGM Complaint
MGM Complaint
 
Wright v marshaw
Wright v marshawWright v marshaw
Wright v marshaw
 
Worley v. YMCA
Worley v. YMCAWorley v. YMCA
Worley v. YMCA
 
Opinion grossman FL preemptory challenges
Opinion grossman FL preemptory challengesOpinion grossman FL preemptory challenges
Opinion grossman FL preemptory challenges
 
Judge's ruling on seeling bills to 3rd party
Judge's ruling on seeling bills to 3rd partyJudge's ruling on seeling bills to 3rd party
Judge's ruling on seeling bills to 3rd party
 
VW Clean Diesel PSC appointments
VW Clean Diesel PSC appointmentsVW Clean Diesel PSC appointments
VW Clean Diesel PSC appointments
 
Lumber Liquidators MDL goes to Alexandria Virginia
Lumber Liquidators MDL goes to Alexandria VirginiaLumber Liquidators MDL goes to Alexandria Virginia
Lumber Liquidators MDL goes to Alexandria Virginia
 
NEBRASKA TRIAL LAWYERS
NEBRASKA TRIAL LAWYERS NEBRASKA TRIAL LAWYERS
NEBRASKA TRIAL LAWYERS
 
NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL CEASE AND DESIST LETTER HERBAL PRODUCTS
NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL CEASE AND DESIST LETTER HERBAL PRODUCTSNEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL CEASE AND DESIST LETTER HERBAL PRODUCTS
NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL CEASE AND DESIST LETTER HERBAL PRODUCTS
 
Nucci Target Social Media Discovery
Nucci Target Social Media DiscoveryNucci Target Social Media Discovery
Nucci Target Social Media Discovery
 
Trail v. Lesko
Trail v. LeskoTrail v. Lesko
Trail v. Lesko
 
Aps
ApsAps
Aps
 
Trail v. lesko (social media discovery)
Trail v. lesko (social media discovery)Trail v. lesko (social media discovery)
Trail v. lesko (social media discovery)
 
NCAA CONCUSSION MDL, ORDER AND PLAINTIFFS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
NCAA CONCUSSION MDL, ORDER AND PLAINTIFFS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEENCAA CONCUSSION MDL, ORDER AND PLAINTIFFS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
NCAA CONCUSSION MDL, ORDER AND PLAINTIFFS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
 
USA v.Mira
USA v.Mira USA v.Mira
USA v.Mira
 
Schedule of action androgel MDL AND TRANSFER ORDER
Schedule of action androgel MDL AND TRANSFER ORDERSchedule of action androgel MDL AND TRANSFER ORDER
Schedule of action androgel MDL AND TRANSFER ORDER
 
Morcellator Lawyer Georgia
Morcellator Lawyer GeorgiaMorcellator Lawyer Georgia
Morcellator Lawyer Georgia
 
First LowT Complaint filed in Georgia Punitive Damages
First LowT Complaint filed in Georgia Punitive DamagesFirst LowT Complaint filed in Georgia Punitive Damages
First LowT Complaint filed in Georgia Punitive Damages
 
Trial 2014 3_mar_dougherty, bruera_reprint
Trial 2014 3_mar_dougherty, bruera_reprintTrial 2014 3_mar_dougherty, bruera_reprint
Trial 2014 3_mar_dougherty, bruera_reprint
 

60 Minutes and New England Compounding Pharmacy

  • 1. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ____________________________________ ) IN RE: NEW ENGLAND ) Master Docket No. 12-cv-12052-FDS COMPOUNDING PHARMACY CASES ) ____________________________________) ) This Document Relates To: ) ) CHAD GREEN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 12-12121-FDS v. ) ) NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING ) PHARMACY, INC. ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ADOPT STATE COURT ORDERS GRANTING MOTION TO PERMIT INSPECTION OF PREMISES OF DEFENDANT December 10, 2012 Boal, M.J. Plaintiff Chad Green seeks an expedited opportunity to enter the facility of defendant New England Compounding Pharmacy, Inc. (“NECC”) at 697 Waverly Street, Framingham, Massachusetts (the “Facility”), and conduct various inspections and tests at that location. The District Court referred that motion to the undersigned on November 29, 2012. Docket No. 59.1 For the following reasons, the Court grants the motion within the parameters set forth in this order. 1 Unless otherwise specified, references to docket numbers refer to the Master Docket No. 12-12052-FDS. -1-
  • 2. I. Factual and Procedural Background On November 29, 2012, the District Court consolidated, for pre-trial purposes only, various personal injury cases against defendants NECC, Ameridose LLC, Medical Sales Management, Inc., Barry Cadden, Lisa Conigliaro Cadden, Gregory Conigliaro, Douglas Conigliaro, Carla Conigliaro, and Glenn A. Chin, or some subset or combination of those defendants. Docket No. 57. The cases arise out of an outbreak of fungal meningitis in at least 19 states, which has sickened approximately 419 people and caused approximately 30 deaths. See, e.g., Chad Green Complaint2 at ¶ 1. The plaintiffs allege that the outbreak originated from medication compounded by NECC. Id. Plaintiffs allege that the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) have “implicated” NECC as the cause of the injuries and deaths. Id. at ¶ 2. According to plaintiffs, NECC’s facilities were unsterile and replete with fungus that contaminated the vials holding the medications. Id. The United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts and its law enforcement partners are actively investigating allegations concerning NECC. Docket No. 84 at 1. Other federal, state and possibly local public health authorities may also be investigating NECC. Docket No. 59 at 2. In addition, NECC is engaged in a recall of its products. Id. Plaintiff Chad Green filed his complaint in the Massachusetts Superior Court on November 6, 2012. Green Docket3 No. 14 at 50. The Defendants removed the case to this Court 2 Chad Green v. New England Compounding Pharmacy, Inc., d/b/a New England Compounding Center, No. 12-cv-12121-FDS (D. Mass.), Docket No. 1-1. 3 “Green Docket” refers to the docket of Chad Green v. New England Compounding Pharmacy, Inc., d/b/a New England Compounding Center, No. 12-cv-12121-FDS (D. Mass.). -2-
  • 3. on November 14, 2012. Green Docket No. 1. Prior to the removal of Green’s complaint to this Court, the Massachusetts Superior Court granted his ex parte emergency motion for inspection of the premises. Green Docket No. 14 at 13, 50. The order contained no restrictions on any such inspection. The case was removed to this Court before Green carried out the inspection. On November 20, 2012, Green filed a motion asking this Court to adopt the order of the Massachusetts court allowing the inspection. Green Docket No. 7. On November 29, 2012, the District Court vacated the order entered by the Massachusetts Superior Court granting plaintiff’s motion to inspect the premises and referred Green’s motion to adopt that order to the undersigned. Docket No. 59. This Court issued a scheduling order on November 30, 2012. Docket No. 60. Pursuant to that scheduling order, Green, NECC and the United States4 filed written submissions to the Court regarding Green’s request for an expedited inspection. Docket Nos. 72, 84, 86. Both Green and NECC submitted expert affidavits to support their respective positions.5 Docket Nos. 72-1, 86-1. The Court heard oral argument on December 6, 2012. II. Analysis Green seeks an expedited inspection of the Facility. Green listed the tests to be 4 Given the proposed inspection’s potential effects on the ongoing investigations and/or the performance by public health authorities of their statutory and regulatory duties, the Court invited federal and state authorities to file submissions and/or to attend the December 6, 2012 hearing. Docket No. 60. The United States filed a statement on December 5, 2012 (Docket No. 84) and attended the hearing. A representative from the Framingham Board of Health appeared at the hearing and stated that it had no objection to an inspection. Otherwise, no state or local authorities filed any papers or appeared at the hearing. 5 Plaintiffs Lance Martin and Toby Martin concurred with Green’s request. Docket No. 88. -3-
  • 4. performed, see Docket No. 72 at 11-12, and stated at oral argument that the tests could be completed in four days. As set forth by the District Court, the resolution of Green’s request for an expedited inspection is complicated by a number of factors, including: 1. The NECC facility has apparently been the subject of extensive investigation, testing, and other actions by federal, state, and possibly local public health authorities. Those investigations appear to be ongoing. It is unclear whether the proposed inspection and testing might interfere with the performance by public health authorities of their statutory and regulatory duties. For obvious reasons, the discovery process in this case must yield, when necessary, to the protection of the public health. 2. The Court understands that NECC is engaged in a recall of its products. It is likewise unclear whether the proposed inspection and testing might interfere with or affect that process. 3. Green contends that the testing and sampling at issue is time-sensitive, in that he seeks to ascertain the current presence of bacteria, mold, particulate matter, and other contaminants. It is unclear whether such testing undertaken now would produce scientifically meaningful evidence as to conditions at the facility at the relevant time. Docket No. 59 at 2. In addition, cases against NECC are now pending in various federal and state courts, with more likely to be filed. A motion for transfer and consolidation seeking to coordinate these actions for pretrial discovery and proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a) is currently pending before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. See Docket No. 13 at 2; Docket No. 57 at 3. At oral argument, NECC conceded that Green is entitled to an inspection. However, NECC opposes the inspection because it believes that the passage of time since the relevant events would render any testing scientifically invalid. Docket No. 86 at 5-9. Somewhat contradictorily, NECC also argues that an inspection is premature and unfair to the myriad other plaintiffs who may assert claims against NECC. Id. at 4-5. NECC further argues that an -4-
  • 5. inspection at this time would interfere with government investigations and its efforts to preserve evidence. Id. at 5.6 The United States does not oppose an inspection of the Facility but requests that any order authorizing entry and testing incorporate certain restrictions in order to avoid compromising the government’s ongoing investigation. Docket No. 84. Green has agreed to the United States’ proposed restrictions. For the following reasons, the Court will allow Green to perform an inspection subject to the parameters set forth in this order. A. Early Discovery Green seeks early discovery. Rule 26(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that: “[e]xcept . . . when authorized under these rules or by order or agreement of the parties, a party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f).” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(d). In order for a party to obtain expedited discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference, it must show good cause. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). The First Circuit has not addressed the proper standard for determining whether good cause exists for expedited discovery. The Court finds that Green has shown good cause for early discovery, namely an 6 During oral argument, NECC brought up for the first time that some of the proposed testing may affect property that is not owned or controlled by NECC or the other defendants. Nevertheless, NECC brought forward no specifics or evidence to back up its assertions. Indeed, it appears that the property where the Facility is located may be owned by entities related to the defendants in some of these actions. See, e.g., Erkan Complaint at ¶ 24 (the complex where the Facility is located is “owned by Gregory Conigliaro’s real estate companies, GDC Holdings Inc. and/or GDC Properties Management LLC.”). Accordingly, the Court does not find this argument persuasive. -5-
  • 6. inspection.7 Time is of the essence. Several months have passed since the relevant events and the passage of time will only make it more difficult for Green to obtain scientifically valid information. B. Standard of Review “Discovery procedures set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seek to further the interests of justice by minimizing surprise at trial and ensuring wide-ranging discovery of information.” Cartel Asset Mgmt. v. Ocwen Fin. Corp., No. 01-cv-01644, 2010 WL 502721, *9 (D. Colo. Feb. 8, 2010) (citing United States ex rel. Schwartz v. TRW, Inc., 211 F.R.D. 388, 392 (C.D. Cal. 2002)). To that end, Rule 26(b) permits “discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense . . .” or discovery of any information that “appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). Rule 26(b)(1) generally permits liberal discovery of relevant information. Baker v. Liggett Group, Inc., 132 F.R.D. 123, 125 (D. Mass. 1990). As the Supreme Court has instructed, because “discovery itself is designed to help define and clarify the issues,” the limits set forth in Rule 26 must be “construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matters that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). There are limits, however, on the scope of discovery. A court must limit discovery if it determines that the discovery sought is (1) unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; 7 At oral argument, Green also sought permission to interview NECC employees. This order authorizes an inspection only. All other discovery must at this stage follow the ordinary civil discovery process. -6-
  • 7. (2) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by discovery in the action to obtain the information sought; or (3) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation, and the importance of the projected discovery in resolving the issues. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). Subject to the limits imposed by Rule 26, Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party “entry onto designated land or other property possessed or controlled by the responding party, so that the requesting party may inspect, measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the property or any designated object or operation on it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(2). Because entry upon a party’s premises may engender greater burdens and risks than other forms of discovery, at least one Circuit has recognized the need for a more searching inquiry into the necessity for inspection. See Belcher v. Bassett Furniture Indus. Inc., 588 F.2d 904, 908 (4th Cir. 1978). When an inspection will involve destructive testing,8 courts generally consider four factors in determining whether to allow the testing: (1) whether the proposed testing is reasonable, necessary, and relevant to proving the movant’s case; (2) whether the non-movant’s ability to present evidence at trial will be hindered, or whether the non-movant will be prejudiced in some other way; (3) whether there are any less prejudicial alternative methods of obtaining the evidence sought; and (4) whether there are adequate safeguards to minimize prejudice to the non-movant, particularly the non-movant’s ability to present evidence at trial. 8 Destructive testing is testing that results in alteration or destruction. Bostic v. Ammar’s, Inc., No. 03-146-ART, 2011 WL 251009, at *2 n. 4 (E.D. Ky. Jan. 26, 2011). -7-
  • 8. See Garcia v. Aartman Transport Corp., No. 4:08 cv 77, 2011 WL 665451, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Feb. 14, 2011) (citing Mirchandani v. Home Depot, USA, Inc., 235 F.R.D. 611, 614 (D. Md. 2006)); Bostic v. Ammar’s, Inc., No. 03-146-ART, 2011 WL 251009, at * 3 (E.D. Ky. Jan. 26, 2011) (citing Mirchandani, 235 F.R.D. at 614). C. The Inspection Is Reasonably Calculated To Lead To The Discovery Of Admissible Evidence NECC argues that the inspection and tests proposed by Green constitute an exercise in futility and would not lead to the discovery of relevant or reliable evidence. Docket No. 86 at 6. According to NECC and its expert, none of the tests proposed by Green are capable of providing scientifically reliable data regarding the means by which the lots of medication at issue may have been contaminated or can reliably pinpoint the date of the alleged contamination. Id. Green, on the other hand, argues that his expert is able to identify the age of mold through scientifically valid analysis supported in well-respected literature. Docket No. 72 at 15. He also argues that collection of samples would allow his experts to create and evaluate a data set of samples to determine whether an area has had a consistent presence of fungal spores or not. Id. Finally, an inspection will allow Green to determine whether the Facility complies with standards for pharmaceutical compounding. Id. at 15-16. The Court finds that the inspection is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Whether or not the inspection and testing will lead to reliable evidence is best left for a Daubert challenge or a challenge to the weight of the evidence at trial. Indeed, NECC concedes that the proposed testing may determine the existence and concentration of mold at the facility at present. Docket No. 86 at 6. If, for example, Green’s experts are able to locate the fungus that was in the recalled vials of NECC’s product in one or more locations at the -8-
  • 9. Facility, that evidence would certainly be relevant even if it is not dispositive of the issue. Accordingly, the Court finds that Green is entitled to an inspection at this time. D. Destructive Testing Green proposes to conduct some “minimally invasive” testing, such as “sampling of wall, roof, ceiling and foundational assemblies and cavities, interior mechanical systems, including, but not limited to HVAC systems and its ductwork and plumbing systems,” sampling of edging of carpeting and testing of the clean room. Docket No. 72 at 12. After consideration of the parties’ submissions and arguments, the Court finds that such testing appears to be reasonable, necessary and relevant; that there are no adequate alternative methods to obtain the information; that the defendants will not be prejudiced; and there are adequate safeguards to minimize the prejudice to the defendants, such as allowing the defendants and their expert to attend the inspection, to allow them to perform similar tests or take their own samples if they so desire, and to provide them with the results of any tests performed. Nevertheless, the Court is cognizant that destructive testing may affect the ongoing government investigation. Accordingly, Green must confer with the United States regarding protocols for any destructive testing. E. Parameters Of The Inspection Having found that an inspection is appropriate in this case,9 the Court orders Green to confer with other plaintiffs, the defendants, and the United States in an attempt to agree on a 9 At oral argument, NECC’s counsel argued that under certain circumstances, this Court’s order could restrict the rights of any potential defendants in a criminal case. To be clear, this order applies only to the civil cases before this Court and is not intended to have any effect to restrict the rights of any potential criminal defendants. -9-
  • 10. protocol for the inspection. If the parties are unable to agree on a protocol, each of them shall file its own proposed order and protocol for inspection. Any such protocol(s) shall be filed with the Court no later than the close of business on Friday, December 14, 2012. To aid the parties in the development of an inspection protocol, the Court sets the following parameters: 1. Any inspection and testing pursuant to this Order must be completed in four business days or less and no further entry into the Facility for purposes of testing will be allowed after the four-day period absent good cause shown. The parties shall confer and attempt to agree on the dates of the inspection and testing. 2. Green, his attorneys and/or his expert(s) may enter the Facility only with prior notice to the United States and in the company of one or more representatives of the Office of the United States Attorney and/or federal law enforcement. All testing, examination and inspection shall occur under the supervision of such representatives. 3. Any party’s inspection and testing shall under no circumstances extend to drugs or packages of drugs that are presently located at the NECC Facility following return by customers and/or pickup and processing by federal agencies, and under no circumstances shall the parties remove any drugs from the Facility for testing or otherwise. 4. Any party’s inspection or testing shall not extend to the interior of any locked drug vault at the NECC Facility. 5. The defendants and/or their expert(s) may be present during the inspection and -10-
  • 11. may also take samples for their own testing. 6. Green shall share the results of testing with the other plaintiffs, the defendants, and any federal or state authorities that request results. 7. Green shall share the results of testing with any future plaintiffs. Future plaintiffs shall not be entitled to perform their own inspection absent good cause. 8. Green shall advise the United States with specificity of the nature and subject of any destructive testing, including cleaning the Facility, and shall attempt to reach an agreement with the United States regarding any such testing. /s/ Jennifer C. Boal JENNIFER C. BOAL United States Magistrate Judge -11-