FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/12/ :50 AM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 146 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2017. Exhibit D

Transcription

1 Exhibit D

2 March 24, 2017 Gabriel F. Soledad QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 777 6th Street, N.W. 11th Floor Washington, D.C Lauren M. Weinstein Molo Lamken LLP The Watergate, Suite New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C T: F: Melissa Colón-Bosolet SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY BY Re: Rimsa v. Espinosa, No /2016 Search Terms Dear Gabe and Melissa: We write regarding the terms, date ranges and custodians that we proposed to run across plaintiffs electronically stored information ( ESI ). On February 21, over one month after we made our initial proposal, the Espinosas proposed to add over 75 new document custodians and hundreds of additional terms to our search protocol. 1 On February 23, we explained that we intended to negotiate the search protocol only once and asked whether PPTM planned to submit its own search protocol. On March 11, PPTM provided its proposed edits to the search protocol, adding approximately 700 terms in addition to those the Espinosas had already added. In plaintiffs responses and objections to defendants document requests, we agreed to produce documents subject to reasonable limitations with respect to custodians, date ranges, and search terms. The search protocol you proposed would require us to search data for over 100 custodians, over a span of two years, using nearly 1,000 separate search terms. That proposal is plainly unreasonable and unduly burdensome. Contrary to your unsupported assertions, there is no requirement that we search the ESI of all the individuals you identify, many of whom are unlikely to have any material number of unique responsive documents. For example, you have proposed to add over 50 custodians solely on the basis that they had access to or credentials for the virtual data room that Goldman Sachs set up for this deal. That clearly is not a sufficient basis for adding custodians. Although our 1 On March 21, Daniel Pulecio-Boek clarified that you were not proposing changes to our proposed date ranges (December 1, 2014 March 1, 2016 and March 1, 2016 December 1, 2016).

3 original custodian proposal already included the employees most likely to have responsive, nonprivileged information based on their positions at Teva and Rimsa, in the interest of compromise, we will agree to add the following individuals as document custodians: Miguel Angel Arizmendi, Gustavo Castro, Christian Horak, Daniella Gutman, Iris Meisner, Juan Pablo Navone, Darinka Ramirez, Karin Rosas, Elhanan De-Ross, Virgilio Penso, and Gabriela Zuniga. Your search terms proposal is even more unreasonable than your custodians proposal. It includes many terms that have no relevance whatsoever to the claims or defenses at issue in this case. For example, you explained that the terms COFECE or Comisión Federal are relevant, in your view, to Teva s compliance with Mexican antitrust law and its representations to Mexican antitrust authorities. Neither of those has anything remotely to do with the issues in this lawsuit. Some of your search terms are so broad that they will inevitably hit on thousands of irrelevant documents. For example, Audit* or Visita* would hit on every mention of an audit or visit to any place without any connection to Rimsa or the issues in this litigation. Nonetheless, in the interest of compromise, we will run nearly all of your proposed terms across the ESI available for the 29 custodians we originally proposed and the 11 individuals we agreed to designate as custodians above. After we receive hit reports, we will advise whether we are willing to review documents hitting on those terms. We will not run the patent, registry, or file numbers PPTM requested, which, together, comprise approximately 700 independent terms. For the Rimsa products, we will run only the names of products that were registered and commercialized at the time of the acquisition (see attached Annex A). We addressed the other issues raised in Gabe s February 21 correspondence by dated March 15. Yours truly, /s/ Lauren M. Weinstein Lauren M. Weinstein 2

4 ANNEX A

5 1. Aclorim 2. Alamine 3. Alersin 4. Aliduet 5. Alpraser Simple 6. Amiyodazol 7. Amoxiclide 8. Amoxisol 9. Artridol 10. Biocilin 11. Bitarflan 12. Briobalyn 13. Bufinest 14. Cartigen 15. Cartigen NF 16. Cistersin 17. Clodaset 18. Complejo B 19. Derinex 20. Dibusin 21. Diprivan 22. Diselat 23. Dolocam 24. Dolocam Plus 25. Dolocartigen 26. Dystonal 27. Ephoetin 28. Ergex 29. Espafin 30. Estafimac 31. Extaden 32. Febrim 33. Gex 34. Gex-NFR 35. Glapiosin 36. Hadirax 37. Hanycot 38. Imiluft 39. Infebye 40. Infepro 41. Inglav 42. Intorim 43. Jopevic 44. Leavdid 45. Leofrin 46. Lunaren 47. Melgazil 48. Naropin 49. Neilar 50. Neodexim 51. Nifedrex 52. Novasipino 53. Novoberil 54. Nuro-B 55. Oftilam 56. Olcicavar 57. Osteomin 58. Osteomin D 59. Outnestin 60. Oxigricol 61. Pasdebugs 62. Penicil 63. Penidural 64. Pentarim 65. Planex 66. Polibetic 67. Prevefem complex 68. Profidox 69. Retodol 70. Retodol Compositum 71. Rhilis-As 72. Rimbipar 73. Rimoxol 74. Rimtodion 75. Rodribrak 76. Rodrical 77. Ropricen 78. Rumaxoi 79. Setam 80. Sibilex 81. Sinaplin 82. Sincretone 83. Sinergix 84. Sinkersim 85. Sinprein 86. Sodilin 87. Sodimine 88. Sotan 89. Stidnika 90. Tainabu 91. Teczac 92. Tehipren 93. Tidax 94. Translam 95. Tremecox 96. Tremepen 97. Treptorim 98. Tri-Desac 99. Trigen 100. Trivafluc 101. Utranil 102. Vasculflow 103. Vibrent 104. Vitalen 105. Xylocaina 106. Xylocaina EV 107. Xylocaina Spray 108. Yelit 109. Ygalex 110. Ze-Rimsol 111. Zinhypoc 112. Zitroflam 113. Zofilip 114. Zolex