Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc. 8/19/08 CA1/2

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: A116798M

Case Date: 11/19/2008

Preview:Filed 8/19/08

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

JAMES CLAYWORTH, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. PFIZER, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents.

A116798 (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG04172428 ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING

BY THE COURT: The opinion filed herein on July 25, 2008, is modified as follows: (1) On page 2, fn. 3, line 3, the words "Johnson & Johnson" are deleted so that line 3 should read: Janssen Pharmaceutical, Inc.; Ortho McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc.; (2) On page 10, the first line of the fourth paragraph is modified so that it reads: In an seven-to-one opinion written by Justice White, the Supreme Court reversed the (3) On page 22, following the second full paragraph, a new paragraph is added as follows: The proof problems present in Hanover Shoe are not apparent in the record here. To the contrary, while plaintiffs resisted discovery on various grounds, Judge Sabraw specifically found that plaintiffs

1

had not shown it was unduly burdensome or oppressive for them to produce data regarding purchases and sales of drugs, since the information was maintained electronically and could apparently be extracted and compiled with relative ease. Indeed, as early as 1978, commentators were noting the significance and utility of the computer in antitrust litigation. (See, for example, Board of Editors of the Federal Judicial Center, Manual for Complex Litigation (1978)

Download Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc. 8/19/08 CA1/2.pdf