FINAL Chantix Motion to Compel Responses to...
Transcript of FINAL Chantix Motion to Compel Responses to...
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
(SOUTHERN DIVISION)
IN RE: CHANTIX (VARENICLINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
Master File No. 2:09-CV-2039-IPJ MDL Case No. 2092
This Document Relates to: ALL CASES.
Pfizer’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Its Motion to Compel Responses to Third-Party Subpoenas
Joseph G. Petrosinelli Williams & Connolly LLP 725 Twelfth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (202) 434-5000 Email: [email protected]
Loren H. Brown DLA Piper LLP (US) 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020-1104 Phone: (212) 835-6000 Email: [email protected] F. M. (“Tripp”) Haston, III Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP 1819 Fifth Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35206 Phone: (205) 521-8303 Email: [email protected]
Lead Counsel for Defendants
FILED 2011 Mar-16 PM 05:07U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
Case 2:09-cv-02039-IPJ Document 214 Filed 03/16/11 Page 1 of 38
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
i
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .............................................................................. 1 STATEMENT OF FACTS ....................................................................................... 5
A. Chantix ................................................................................................. 5 B. FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System ............................................ 6 C. The Carter Albrecht Incident ................................................................ 8 D. The ISMP Report on Chantix ............................................................. 10
1. Thomas Moore ......................................................................... 11 2. Dr. Curt Furberg ....................................................................... 12 3. The ISMP Report Findings ...................................................... 14 4. Methodological Questions ....................................................... 16
E. Later ISMP Reports ............................................................................ 19 F. Chantix Data Today............................................................................ 19
PROCEDURAL HISTORY .................................................................................... 20 LEGAL ARGUMENT ............................................................................................ 24 THE COURT SHOULD COMPEL PRODUCTION IN RESPONSE TO
PFIZER’S SUBPOENAS ............................................................................. 24 A. The Information Sought by Pfizer Is Relevant .................................. 24
1. Communications with Plaintiffs’ Lawyers Are Relevant ........ 25 2. The Underlying Methodology and Data Are Relevant ............ 26
B. The Information Sought by Pfizer Is Not Privileged or Protected ............................................................................................. 28 1. Moore’s Retention as an Expert Does Not Shield Him ........... 29 2. The Other Asserted Privileges Do Not Apply ......................... 30
CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 33
Case 2:09-cv-02039-IPJ Document 214 Filed 03/16/11 Page 2 of 38
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s) CASES
Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 31
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Southeast Floating Docks, Inc., 231 F.R.D. 426 (M.D. Fla. 2005) ....................................................................... 25
Coker v. Duke & Co., Inc., 177 F.R.D. 682 (M.D. Ala. 1998) ......................................................................... 4
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) ............................................................................................ 16
Deitchman v. E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., 740 F.2d 556, 566 (7th Cir. 1984) ................................................................ 26, 27
Eliasen v. Hamilton, 111 F.R.D. 396 (N.D. Ill. 1986) .......................................................................... 30
Grider v. Keystone Health Plan Central, Inc., No. 05-MC-40, 2005 WL 2030456 (M.D. Pa. July 28, 2005) ................. 4, 25, 29
In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs, 1995 WL 535077 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 5, 1995) ................................................... 26, 27
In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (“MTBE”) Prod. Liab. Litig., 269 F.R.D. 360 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) ........................................................ 4, 25, 27, 31
In re Rezulin Prods. Liab. Litig., 309 F. Supp. 2d 531 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) ................................................................ 14
In re Silicone Gel Breast Implants Prods. Liab. Litig., No. CV 92-P-10000S, 1996 WL 13582526 (N.D. Ala. April 11, 1996) ............ 27
Indus. Maritime Carriers, Inc. v. PT (Persero) Inka, 179 F.R.D. 153 (E.D. Pa. 1998) .......................................................................... 30
McClain v. Metabolife Int’l, Inc., 401 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 7
Case 2:09-cv-02039-IPJ Document 214 Filed 03/16/11 Page 3 of 38
iii
Parson & Whittemore Enter. Corp. v. Cello Energy LLC, No. 09-00631-CG-B, 2010 WL 1994857 (S.D. Ala. March 29, 2010) .............. 25
Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Co. v. Cooper Indus., Inc., 166 F.R.D. 481 (D. Colo. 1996) ..................................................................... 5, 29
Stewart v. Mitchell Transport, Civ. No. 01-2546, 2002 WL 1558210 (D. Kan. July 8, 2002) ........................... 31
University of Pennsylvania v. E.E.O.C., 493 U.S. 182 (1990) ............................................................................................ 31
RULES
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) ............................................................................................ 25
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(B)(i) ................................................................................... 31
Case 2:09-cv-02039-IPJ Document 214 Filed 03/16/11 Page 4 of 38
1
Defendant Pfizer Inc. respectfully submits this Memorandum of Law in
support of its Motion to Compel Responses to Third-Party Subpoenas.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On May 21, 2008, the Institute for Safe Medication Practices (“ISMP”)
published a report on Chantix entitled, “Strong Safety Signal Seen for New
Varenicline Risks,” which reported that Chantix had the highest number of adverse
event reports during the last quarter of 2007. Unlike true clinical trial research,
adverse event reports lack a control group, they are submitted by members of the
public (e.g., healthcare providers, patients, family members, attorneys), they often
contain incomplete information, and they are not verified. On the face of the
report, the ISMP authors concede that “[a]dverse event reports in themselves do
not establish a causal link to the drug.” This conclusion is consistent with the
universal recognition by FDA and the scientific community that adverse event
reports are inadequate to establish a cause and effect relationship between an event
such as suicide and exposure to a medication such as Chantix.
Despite these admitted limitations, the ISMP report acted as a catalyst for
this litigation, with one plaintiff attorney reportedly receiving 1,300 inquiries from
potential plaintiffs the day after ISMP published the report. Today, Plaintiffs rely
heavily on the ISMP report as a basis for their Master Complaint, citing it in
support of their claims that Chantix causes suicide and other injuries. The lead
Case 2:09-cv-02039-IPJ Document 214 Filed 03/16/11 Page 5 of 38
2
authors of the ISMP report are Thomas Moore and Curt Furberg, both of whom
frequently serve as experts for plaintiffs’ lawyers in pharmaceutical litigation.
Moore, despite having no scientific training, frequently conducts analyses of
FDA’s adverse event database for members of the plaintiffs’ bar. Furberg is a
longtime critic of the pharmaceutical industry, and he has served as a “drug safety”
expert on behalf of plaintiffs’ lawyers in numerous pharmaceutical litigations.
Neither Moore nor Furberg disclosed this information in the ISMP report.
Because Plaintiffs cited the ISMP report in support of their allegations here,
on August 13-16, 2010—more than seven months ago—Pfizer served document
subpoenas on ISMP, Moore, Furberg, Michael Cohen (the third author of the
report), and Drug Safety Research (Moore’s litigation consulting company). The
subpoenas seek two categories of information: (1) any communications with
plaintiffs’ lawyers regarding Chantix; and (2) the underlying methodology and data
that form the basis of the ISMP report and subsequent reports by ISMP that also
discuss Chantix. These are routine third-party document subpoenas, no different
than subpoenas served by Plaintiffs on various non-parties, such as their May 24,
2010 subpoena to Dr. Douglas Jorenby, a smoking cessation expert at the
University of Wisconsin, which sought all documents and communications
received from and sent to Pfizer relating to the clinical study he conducted, “Long-
Term Varenicline Treatment for Smoking Cessation.” Pursuant to Pretrial Order
Case 2:09-cv-02039-IPJ Document 214 Filed 03/16/11 Page 6 of 38
3
No. 4, Pfizer provided Plaintiffs with advance copies of the subpoenas, and
Plaintiffs asserted no objections whatsoever.
In October 2010, Steve Webster, counsel for the subpoena recipients,
refused to produce several of the requested categories of documents, including any
communications with plaintiff lawyers. At the time, Webster explicitly stated that
none of the subpoena recipients had been retained as experts by Plaintiffs in the
litigation, and thus that was no basis to object to the subpoenas. Pfizer then
reached a preliminary agreement with Webster for him to provide any (1) protocols
describing the methodologies ISMP used in its reports; (2) search terms used to
search FDA’s adverse event database; and (3) search results. Pfizer entered into
this arrangement in a good faith effort to obtain some of the material it was
seeking, but Pfizer expressly reserved its right to seek additional information.
Pfizer asserted that right when the material provided by Webster failed to
include any protocols or search terms and consisted of what appear to be random
search results. When Pfizer followed up with Webster, however, he now said—
seven months after the subpoenas had been served—that Plaintiffs were retaining
Moore as their expert, and he turned over his representation of the subpoena
recipients to Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel in the MDL. Prior to this time, all of Pfizer’s
arrangements with Webster were made with the understanding that Moore had not
been retained as an expert in the litigation. Since then, Pfizer has learned from
Case 2:09-cv-02039-IPJ Document 214 Filed 03/16/11 Page 7 of 38
4
Plaintiffs’ counsel that there were communications between Moore and one
plaintiff attorney regarding Chantix prior to Moore’s retention as an expert.
The parties have met and conferred on these issues. While Plaintiffs’
counsel initially expressed a willingness to produce communications with attorneys
and certain other materials, they have now withdrawn that offer because the parties
could not reach a complete agreement on production and because Pfizer would not
agree to forfeit its ability to seek additional information if necessary.
Pfizer is entitled to these communications and the underlying methodologies
and data that form the basis of the ISMP reports. This information is relevant to
Pfizer’s defenses, particularly under the broad criteria for relevance applied to
discovery subpoenas. See Coker v. Duke & Co., Inc., 177 F.R.D. 682, 685 (M.D.
Ala. 1998) (“Where there is a doubt over relevancy, the court should still permit
discovery.”); Grider v. Keystone Health Plan Central, Inc., No. 05-MC-40, 2005
WL 2030456, at *2 (M.D. Pa. July 28, 2005) (compelling production of
communications between plaintiffs’ lawyers and subpoena recipients); In re Methyl
Tertiary Butyl Ether (“MTBE”) Prods. Liab. Litig., 269 F.R.D. 360, 364-65
(S.D.N.Y. 2010) (finding non-profit organization’s study “highly relevant” and
compelling production of “any raw data from its MTBE study”).
Further, the information sought by Pfizer is neither privileged nor protected.
The fact that Plaintiffs’ counsel has now retained Moore as an expert witness does
Case 2:09-cv-02039-IPJ Document 214 Filed 03/16/11 Page 8 of 38
5
not shield him or his materials from discovery because the subpoena seeks
information regarding factual matters that precede his retention as an expert. See
Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Co. v. Cooper Indus., Inc., 166 F.R.D. 481, 482 (D.
Colo. 1996) (“[R]ule 26(b)(4)(B) permits a party to engage in discovery with
respect to information consultative experts acquired prior to being retained by an
opposing party in anticipation of the underlying litigation.”) (emphasis in original).
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. Chantix
Smoking is the leading cause of preventable disease and death in the world.1
Each year, approximately 443,000 people in the U.S. die prematurely from
smoking.2 Approximately 70% of smokers say they want to quit, and 45% try to
quit smoking each year, but only a fraction of that number have long-term
success.3 Before 2006, many smokers tried but failed to quit with older smoking
cessation products, like the nicotine patch, nicotine gum, and Zyban. This left the
public health community with a medical need for new options.
On May 10, 2006, the Food & Drug Administration (“FDA”) approved
Chantix as a safe and effective aid for smoking cessation.4 Since then, Chantix has
1 http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/ (last visited Mar. 9,
2011), Ex. 1. 2 Id. 3 Id. 4 FDA Letter, May 10, 2006, Ex. 2. Chantix is the brand name for varenicline.
Case 2:09-cv-02039-IPJ Document 214 Filed 03/16/11 Page 9 of 38
6
helped a substantial number of smokers quit.5 Data from randomized clinical
trials—the gold standard of scientific evidence—have consistently shown that
Chantix is safe and the most effective smoking cessation therapy available to
patients today.6
B. FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System
After approval, FDA continues to monitor the safety of medications through
its Adverse Event Reporting System (“AERS”).7 AERS is a computerized
database compiled from MedWatch forms, written reports of adverse drug events
submitted by manufacturers and the public.8 Anyone can submit a MedWatch
form, including patients, family members, friends, neighbors, and even attorneys.9
According to FDA, the purpose of AERS is to identify potential issues that
“indicate the need for further investigation, which may or may not lead to the
conclusion that the product caused the event.”10 FDA recognizes that adverse
event reports have significant limitations and that they do not provide reliable
evidence of causation for several reasons. For instance, the quality of MedWatch
5 Pfizer Response to CHMP, Nov. 25, 2008, at 26-33, 10-14, Ex. 3. 6 See, e.g., Harrington, EXPERT REV. RESP. MED. 2009;3(5):475-85, Ex. 4. 7 FDA, Adverse Event Reporting System, http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/Guidance
ComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Surveillance/AdverseDrugEffects/default.htm (last visited Mar. 9, 2011), Ex. 5.
8 Id. 9 FDA, MedWatch, http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/ HowToReport/default.htm (last
visited Mar. 9, 2011), Ex. 6.
Case 2:09-cv-02039-IPJ Document 214 Filed 03/16/11 Page 10 of 38
7
reports is often poor, with critical information missing such as the description of
the adverse event, the patient’s medical history, or concomitant medications.11
FDA also recognizes that “there is almost always an underlying background rate
for any clinical event in a population,” so there is no reliable way to attribute an
event to the medication as opposed to the background rate.12 Further, adverse
event reports are “subject to a variety of reporting biases,” including being elevated
by publicity.13 In the context of suicide and neuropsychiatric events in particular,
FDA has said that adverse event data is “uninterpretable” with respect to
determining causation.14 Courts, including the Eleventh Circuit, also recognize
that adverse event reports are unreliable evidence of causation. See, e.g., McClain
v. Metabolife Int’l, Inc., 401 F.3d 1233, 1250 (11th Cir. 2005) (describing FDA
adverse event reports as “one of the least reliable sources to justify opinions about
both general and individual causation”).
In a smoking population, adverse event data is even more difficult to
interpret because smokers have a significantly higher rate of suicide and other
10 FDA, Guidance for Industry: Good Pharmacovigilance Practices & Pharmacoepide-
miologic Assessment, at 4 (Mar. 2005) (“Guidance for Industry”), Ex. 7. 11 Guidance for Industry, at 4 (“The quality of the reports is critical for [an] appropriate
evaluation of the relationship between the product and adverse events.”). 12 FDA, The Clinical Impact of Adverse Event Reporting, at 5 (Oct. 1996) (“Adverse Event
Reporting”), Ex. 8. 13 Guidance for Industry, at 9.
Case 2:09-cv-02039-IPJ Document 214 Filed 03/16/11 Page 11 of 38
8
neuropsychiatric conditions compared to nonsmokers.15 Smokers are two-to-three
times more likely to commit suicide than nonsmokers.16 In addition, smokers
attempting to quit without any medication often report symptoms such as
depression, anxiety, irritability, and aggression, which are the same conditions at
issue in this litigation.17 As a result, FDA recognizes that it is “difficult to
evaluate” the Chantix adverse event data because “people who stop smoking
without using medications may also experience similar type symptoms due to
nicotine withdrawal.”18 For these reasons, it is impossible to tell from adverse
event data whether smokers trying to quit with Chantix have any higher risk of
neuropsychiatric events than smokers trying to quit without any medication at all.
C. The Carter Albrecht Incident
For the first 13 months that Chantix was on the market, the number of
adverse event reports was not significant, particularly given the millions of patients
using the medication.19 Then the Carter Albrecht incident occurred.
14 Testimony of Dr. Katz, FDA Jt. Mtg. Peripheral & Central Nervous System Drugs
Advisory Committee & Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee, July 10, 2008, at 103, Ex. 9.
15 Miller, AM. J. PUBLIC HEALTH 2000;90(5):768-73, at 769, Ex. 10. 16 Miller, AM. J. PUBLIC HEALTH 2000;90(5):768-73; see also Gunnell, BMJ
2009;339:b3805, Ex. 11. 17 Hughes, DRUG & ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE 2008;98:169-178, at 172, Ex. 12. 18 Dr. Curtis Rosebraugh, FDA Tr. 7/01/2009, at 1, Ex. 13. 19 Response to CHMP, Nov. 25, 2008, at 37.
Case 2:09-cv-02039-IPJ Document 214 Filed 03/16/11 Page 12 of 38
9
On September 3, 2007, a popular Texas musician named Carter Albrecht and
his girlfriend were drinking at a Dallas bar until approximately 3:00 a.m.20 Once at
home, Albrecht reportedly assaulted his girlfriend, and she locked him out of the
house. 21 Albrecht then wandered into his neighbor’s yard and, for reasons that are
unknown, began pounding loudly on his neighbor’s back door.22 The neighbor,
thinking Albrecht was a burglar, shot Albrecht in the head, and killed him.23
Because Albrecht had been taking Chantix at the time, his girlfriend publicly
blamed Chantix in the media, claiming that the medication was responsible for
Albrecht’s behavior and his death.24 The results of Albrecht’s autopsy were not
available until several days later, but they ultimately showed that Albrecht’s blood
alcohol level was three times the legal limit.25
The publicity surrounding Albrecht’s death was followed by an increase in
the number of adverse event reports for Chantix, which prompted an FDA Alert
that continued the trend of increased reporting, as illustrated below.
20 Eiserer, Carter Albrecht, Musician with Sorta, New Bohemians, Killed, THE DALLAS
MORNING NEWS, Sept. 4, 2007, Ex. 14. 21 Id. 22 Carlton, Musician Carter Albrecht Shot Dead by Girlfriend’s Neighbor, THE
BROWNSVILLE HERALD, Sept. 4, 2007, Ex. 15. 23 Id. 24 Brick, A Dallas Face in Controversy, THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS, Dec. 26, 2010, Ex.
16. 25 Herper, Tobacco-Free, FORBES, Dec. 10, 2007, Ex. 17.
Case 2:09-cv-02039-IPJ Document 214 Filed 03/16/11 Page 13 of 38
10
26
This publicity also drew the attention of plaintiff lawyers, one of whom
wrote an article for the American Association of Justice (formerly the American
Trial Lawyers Association) in 2008 called “Chantix: The Next Mass Tort.” 27
D. The ISMP Report on Chantix
On May 21, 2008, ISMP published a report on Chantix entitled, “Strong
Safety Signal Seen for New Varenicline Risks.”28 ISMP is a non-profit
organization based in Pennsylvania devoted to the prevention of “medication
errors,” such as mistakes caused by similar drug names or confusing drug
26 Response to CHMP, Nov. 25, 2008, at 41. “USPI Update” indicates a change to the U.S.
Package Insert, meaning the Chantix label in the U.S. “SPC Update” indicates a change to the Summary of Product Characteristics, meaning the Chantix label in Europe.
27 Cory Watson Website, http://www.cwcd.com/kristian-rasmussen.php (last visited Mar. 9, 2011), Ex. 18.
28 ISMP, Strong Safety Signal Seen for New Varenicline Risks, May 21, 2008 (“ISMP Report”), Ex. 19.
Case 2:09-cv-02039-IPJ Document 214 Filed 03/16/11 Page 14 of 38
11
packaging.29 Before publishing the report on Chantix, ISMP had no history of
criticizing medications themselves.30
1. Thomas Moore
Moore is the lead author of the ISMP report. Despite being listed as a
“Senior Scientist” on ISMP’s website, Moore has no medical or scientific
degrees.31 He is a former investigative journalist who, in the 1990s, wrote several
books criticizing FDA and the pharmaceutical industry, including DEADLY
MEDICINE and PRESCRIPTION FOR DISASTER: THE HIDDEN DANGERS IN YOUR
MEDICINE CABINET.32 In the latter book, Moore claimed that “there is no such
thing as a safe drug” and that prescription medications cause an estimated 100,000
deaths each year.33 Amazon.com called Moore a “drug doomsayer,” and Library
Journal wrote that Moore’s book “greatly accentuates the negative.”34
Today, Moore consults with plaintiff lawyers and others on issues relating to
drug safety, operating under the business name, Drug Safety Research. While the
29 ISMP Website, About ISMP, http://www.ismp.org/about/default.asp (last visited Mar. 6,
2011) (“ISMP Website”), Ex. 20. 30 See id. 31 ISMP Website, ISMP Staff, http://www.ismp.org/about/staff.asp (last visited Mar. 15,
2011) (“ISMP Staff”), Ex. 21; see also Deposition of Curt Furberg, In re Pfizer Inc. Sec. Litig., May 29, 2009, at 309:11-13 (“Securities Dep.”), Ex. 22.
32 Moore, DEADLY MEDICINE (1995); Moore, PRESCRIPTION FOR DISASTER: THE HIDDEN DANGERS IN YOUR MEDICINE CABINET (1998).
33 See http://www.amazon.com/Prescription-Disaster-Thomas-Moore/dp/0440234840 (last visited Mar. 15, 2011), Ex. 23.
34 Id.
Case 2:09-cv-02039-IPJ Document 214 Filed 03/16/11 Page 15 of 38
12
full scope of Moore’s work with the plaintiffs’ bar is not defined, his website (until
approximately three weeks ago) indicated that his consulting work includes
analyzing FDA’s adverse event database for plaintiff lawyers:
I’ve published scholarly research and written reports for lawyers using the FDA’s database of adverse drug event reports.
As a litigation consultant I have also analyzed pharmaceutical company clinical trials and adverse reaction report data files.35
In the past three weeks, however, it appears that Moore removed extensive
material from his website, including information on his litigation consulting
activities.36
2. Dr. Curt Furberg
Furberg is the second author of the ISMP report. Furberg has a history as a
crusader against the pharmaceutical industry, but his methods have been criticized
and rejected by other members of the medical and scientific community. For
example, from 1989 to 2003, Furberg wrote a series of articles attacking calcium
channel blockers (medications used to treat high blood pressure), alternately
claiming that these medicines caused death, gastrointestinal bleeding, dementia,
35 See http://www.thomasjmoore.com/pages/myadverse.html (last visited Feb. 18, 2011), Ex.
24. 36 Compare http://www.thomasjmoore.com/ (last visited Mar. 9, 2011), Ex. 25, with
http://www.thomasjmoore.com/ (last visited Feb. 18, 2011), Ex. 26.
Case 2:09-cv-02039-IPJ Document 214 Filed 03/16/11 Page 16 of 38
13
and heart attacks.37 Many members of the medical and scientific community
criticized Furberg’s methods as scientifically unsound and rejected his conclusions.
Below are a few examples:
• “[I]f one tried to think of all the things to do wrong in a meta-analysis, this paper [Furberg’s] would have all of them”;38
• “[Furberg’s] investigation disobey[s] virtually all of the principles of proper observational (case-control or cohort) studies”; 39 and
• “[T]here is no scientific basis for Furberg’s conclusions . . . [and] no serious clinical academic in the field agrees with his conclusions.”40
One article, titled “The Furberg Bias” or: The Manipulation of Evidence-
Based Medicine, takes further aim at Furberg’s scientific methods.41 In addition to
these criticisms, Furberg’s results were never replicated by others in subsequent
studies, and FDA never adopted his conclusions.
As a litigation expert, Furberg has testified repeatedly against the
pharmaceutical industry in a number of litigations, including the Baycol, Bextra,
Celebrex, Neurontin, Propulsid, Ortho-Evra patch, Omniscan, Fosamax, and
37 See Furberg, CIRCULATION 1995;92(5):1326-31, Ex. 27; Furberg, LANCET 1996;347:1061-
65, Ex. 28; Furberg, J. AM. GERIATR. SOC. 1997;45:1423-33, Ex. 29; Furberg, LANCET 2000;356:1949-54, Ex. 30.
38 Calcium Channel Blocker Debate Continues, THE PHARMA LETTER, Sept. 11, 1995, at 1, Ex. 31.
39 Kaplan, LANCET 1996;348:541-42 (Letter to the Editor), Ex. 32. 40 Chustecka, Experts Condemn Furberg’s Meta-Analysis Showing Calcium Channel
Blockers to be Inferior, HEARTWIRE, Sept. 1, 2000, at 2, Ex. 33. 41 Middeke, DTSCH. MED. WOCHENSCHR. 2001;126(6):151-52 (Commentary), Ex. 34.
Case 2:09-cv-02039-IPJ Document 214 Filed 03/16/11 Page 17 of 38
14
Rezulin litigations.42 In one case, the court excluded Furberg from testifying about
corporate conduct, finding that Furberg’s position “is not an ‘expert’ opinion, but
rather a personal opinion about what standards [he] believes should apply to
pharmaceutical company conduct.” In re Rezulin Prods. Liab. Litig., 309 F. Supp.
2d 531, 560 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (noting that judges should not be “deceived by the
assertions of experts who offer credentials rather than analysis”).
3. The ISMP Report Findings
According to the ISMP report, Chantix had the highest number of adverse
event reports during the last quarter of 2007, with 988 “serious” injuries reported
during that time period.43 The reported injuries purportedly include suicide,
homicidal ideation, paranoia, and hallucinations, as well as broad categories such
as “accidents and injuries,” “vision disturbance,” and “heart rhythm
disturbances.”44 While Moore and Furberg acknowledge that “media publicity
42 See, e.g., Deposition of Curt Furberg, Rushton v. Bayer Corp., Dec. 23, 2003 (“Baycol
Dep.”), Ex. 35; Deposition of Curt Furberg, In re Bextra & Celebrex Mktg. Sales Practices & Prod. Liab. Litig., Mar. 13, 2008 (“Bextra Dep.”), Ex. 36; Deposition of Curt Furberg, Valenzuela v. Warner-Lambert, July 31, 2002 (“Rezulin Dep.”), Ex. 37; Deposition of Curt Furberg, Sturgill v. Johnson & Johnson Co., Oct. 29, 2002 (“Propulsid Dep.”), Ex. 38; Deposition of Curt Furberg, In re Neurontin Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prods. Liab. Litig., Mar. 11, 2009 (“Neurontin Dep.”), Ex. 39.
43 ISMP Report, at 1. 44 Id. at 1-2.
Case 2:09-cv-02039-IPJ Document 214 Filed 03/16/11 Page 18 of 38
15
about FDA warnings or other actions” can increase adverse event reports, they do
not mention the Albrecht incident and discount that possibility with Chantix.45
Moore and Furberg do concede that “[a]dverse event reports in themselves
do not establish a causal link to the drug.”46 They even concede that “it is likely
that some individual reports will describe complex events for which there are
alternative causes or contain other information to render a relationship to the drug
less likely.”47 Therefore, at best, they say that their findings represent “a signal
that requires further investigation and confirmation.”48
Notwithstanding these limitations, the ISMP report functioned as a catalyst
for this litigation. On the day after ISMP published the report, the same plaintiffs’
attorney who wrote that Chantix was the “next mass tort” said that his firm had
“received 1,300 inquiries from concerned Chantix users since the release of the
[ISMP] report late Wednesday [May 21, 2008].”49 Shortly thereafter, the same
attorney—who communicated with Moore and also has a history of working with
45 Id. at 11. 46 Id. at 1. Furberg has admitted in depositions that adverse event data “has limitations,” and
he has characterized AERS as a “crude method for assessing drug safety.” Securities Dep. at 311:12-20; Furberg & Pitt, J. AM. COLL. CARDIOL. 2001;37(5):1456-60, at 1459, Ex. 40.
47 ISMP Report, at 9. 48 Id. at 10. 49 HealthandSurvival.com, Latest Chantix Safety Concerns Add to Pfizer’s Aches, Pains,
May 22, 2008, http://healthandsurvival.com/2008/05/22/latest-chantix-safety-concerns-add-to-pfizers-aches-pains/ (last visited Mar. 9, 2011), Ex. 41.
Case 2:09-cv-02039-IPJ Document 214 Filed 03/16/11 Page 19 of 38
16
Furberg—filed the first Chantix lawsuit.50 Today, in the Master Complaint,
Plaintiffs continue to rely on the ISMP report to support their claims that Pfizer
ignored safety data showing an association between Chantix and various injuries.51
4. Methodological Questions
In peer-reviewed medical journals, it is standard practice for authors to
include a “methods” section describing their methodology so that other scientists
can replicate those methods and thereby test the results. This process of replication
and testing is the hallmark of scientific inquiry. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 593 (1993) (“Scientific methodology today is based
on generating hypotheses and testing them to see if they can be falsified; indeed,
this methodology is what distinguishes science from other fields of human
inquiry.”). The ISMP report—which was not published in a peer-reviewed
medical journal—has no methods section, leaving a number of methodological
questions.
Moore’s “Third” Approach. The ISMP report acknowledges that there are
two traditional approaches for analyzing adverse event data—the “case series”
approach and a process known as “data mining.”52 Both of these methods are
50 Compl. at 51, Collins v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 08-cv-0888 (S.D. Ind. July 2, 2008), Ex. 42. 51 See Master Compl. ¶¶ 57-61, 63, Ex. 43. 52 ISMP Report, at 5.
Case 2:09-cv-02039-IPJ Document 214 Filed 03/16/11 Page 20 of 38
17
endorsed by FDA.53 Rather than follow these traditional approaches, however,
Moore opted instead for his own “third approach, which was to monitor the flow of
quarterly reports in order to detect changes in the numbers of serious events and
other trends.”54 This third approach is never defined or validated in any way, nor
is there any explanation for why Moore abandoned the two traditional techniques.
No Database Description. While the report is based on an analysis of
FDA’s AERS database, the raw AERS data generally has to be “cleaned” by an
outside vendor so that it can be searched and used for research purposes. Based on
communications with Plaintiffs’ counsel, it appears that Moore does not use an
outside vendor but instead cleans and modifies the raw AERS data himself. The
ISMP report on Chantix does not address this issue at all, although Moore refers to
“our master database” in subsequent reports.55 How and to what extent Moore
modifies the raw AERS data to create his own database remains unknown. This
information is critical because, in order to replicate and test his results, one has to
know where to begin, and Moore’s database is the starting point.
No Description of Search Terms. In a broad sense, searching for adverse
event data is similar to searching for cases on Westlaw or Lexis. The results
depend in large part on the search terms. While the ISMP report refers to the use
53 Guidance for Industry, at 4-12. 54 ISMP Report, at 5.
Case 2:09-cv-02039-IPJ Document 214 Filed 03/16/11 Page 21 of 38
18
of “standardized MedDRA queries” or “SMQs”—prepackaged search terms
devised from the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (“MedDRA”)—the
ISMP report never identifies the SMQs or describes the actual search terms used.56
More significantly, the ISMP report suggests that the search terms were not
definitive, saying “these selection criteria do not provide definitive assessments but
rather are intended to identify potential cases for additional review.”57 This raises
questions not only of what search terms were used, but how they were selected,
and what additional criteria Moore or Furberg applied to the search results.
No Description of Event Counts. How events were counted in the ISMP
report also remains unclear. For example, Moore and Furberg fail to explain
whether their analysis of the fourth quarter of 2007 is based on counting adverse
events for Chantix that occurred during that period or simply those that were
reported during that period.58 The ISMP report also concedes that events may be
counted multiple times, saying that a single event “could be counted in multiple
categories, and classifications are not definitive.”59 To replicate the ISMP report,
however, it is necessary to understand the extent to which Moore and Furberg
double- or triple-counted events and what the actual number of reports were.
55 QuarterWatch: 2008 Quarter 3 (May 7, 2009), at 3, Ex. 44. 56 See ISMP Report, at 7. 57 Id. 58 Id. at 1-2.
Case 2:09-cv-02039-IPJ Document 214 Filed 03/16/11 Page 22 of 38
19
E. Later ISMP Reports
In addition to its first report, which focused exclusively on Chantix, ISMP
has published eight “QuarterWatch” reports.60 These reports purportedly analyze
FDA’s AERS database on a quarter-by-quarter basis, highlighting the medications
with the highest numbers of adverse event reports each quarter. Many of the
reports discuss Chantix.
The later ISMP reports also raise several methodological questions. Moore
and Furberg admit that their methodology “continues to evolve” and change from
one report to the next.61 These changes include “edit[ing] and correct[ing] our
master database of adverse events,”62 correcting a “software error” that led to an
“overstatement of the growth in reports compared to the previous quarter,”63 and
applying “revised criteria” to classify certain events.64 Yet, while Moore and
Furberg mention these changes, they do not describe them in any detail.
59 Id. at 1. 60 QuaterWatch: 2008 Quarter 1 (Oct. 23, 2008), Ex. 45; QuarterWatch: 2008 Quarter 2 (Jan.
15, 2009), Ex. 46; QuarterWatch: 2008 Quarter 3 (May 7, 2009), Ex. 47; QuarterWatch: 2008 Quarter 4 (Oct. 8, 2009), Ex. 48; QuarterWatch: 2009 Quarters 1-3 (Feb. 25, 2010), Ex. 49; QuarterWatch: 2009 Quarter 4 (June 17, 2010), Ex. 50; QuarterWatch: 2010 Quarter 1 (Nov. 4, 2010), Ex. 51; QuarterWatch: 2010 Quarter 2 (January 27, 2011), Ex. 52.
61 QuarterWatch: 2008 Quarter 3 (May 7, 2009), at 7. 62 Id. at 3. 63 QuarterWatch: 2008 Quarter 4 (Oct. 8, 2009), at 6. 64 QuarterWatch: 2008 Quarter 3 (May 7, 2009), at 14.
Case 2:09-cv-02039-IPJ Document 214 Filed 03/16/11 Page 23 of 38
20
F. Chantix Data Today
As noted above, the purpose of adverse event reporting is not to determine
causation but to identify potential issues that “indicate the need for further
investigation” through more reliable scientific tools, such as clinical trials or
observational studies.65 Since ISMP published its first report on Chantix, a number
of clinical trials and observational studies have been published, and none of them
have confirmed the ISMP findings. The largest, an observational study of 80,660
smokers in the U.K. found “no clear evidence of an increased risk of self-harm,
suicidal thoughts, or depression in people prescribed varenicline [Chantix]
compared with those prescribed other smoking cessation products.”66 Pfizer is also
conducting a large clinical trial to investigate “the incidence of mental health
symptoms in people trying to stop smoking.”67
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On August 13-16, 2010, Pfizer served subpoenas duces tecum on ISMP,
Moore, Moore’s consulting company Drug Safety Research, Furberg, and Cohen.68
The subpoenas requested materials related to the underlying methodology used to
generate the ISMP reports and communications between the subpoena recipients
65 Guidance for Industry, at 4. 66 Gunnell, BMJ 2009;339:b3805, at 6. 67 Dr. Curtis Rosebraugh, FDA Tr. 7/01/2009, at 1. 68 See Pfizer Subpoenas, Ex. 53.
Case 2:09-cv-02039-IPJ Document 214 Filed 03/16/11 Page 24 of 38
21
and plaintiffs’ attorneys.69 Before serving the subpoenas, Pfizer gave Plaintiffs’
counsel copies of the subpoenas, pursuant to Pretrial Order No. 4, and they did not
object.70
On August 25, 2010, attorney Steve Webster contacted Pfizer’s counsel and
said that he represented all the subpoena recipients.71 Webster confirmed that none
of the subpoena recipients had been retained as experts in this litigation. Even
though Webster refused to provide certain materials—like communications with
plaintiffs’ lawyers—Pfizer’s counsel reached an agreement with Webster on a
preliminary production of certain materials, including any protocols describing
ISMP’s methodology, a list of the search terms used, and a copy of the search
results.72 Pfizer also explicitly reserved its rights “to seek additional information at
a later time.”73
Webster then provided Pfizer with a package of materials.74 The materials
did not comply with the agreement, however, as they contained no protocol and no
69 Id. 70 Holian Letter, July 29, 2010, Ex. 54; Pretrial Order No. 4: Discovery Plan, Feb. 24, 2010, at 2 (“No party to the Plan may conduct any discovery not expressly authorized by the Plan absent further Order of this Court or express agreement of the parties. This provision shall not preclude third party discovery; provided, however, that any party intending to serve third party discovery shall give ten (10) days written notice to the other party of the third party discovery to be served.”), Ex. 55. 71 Webster E-mail, Aug. 25, 2010, Ex. 56. 72 Campbell Letter, Oct. 7, 2010, Ex. 57. 73 Id. at 2. 74 Webster Letter, Oct. 26, 2010, Ex. 58.
Case 2:09-cv-02039-IPJ Document 214 Filed 03/16/11 Page 25 of 38
22
search terms. The materials provided appeared to be the results of some search,
but, without any understanding of the search terms or the ISMP report to which
they applied, they were useless. Pfizer’s counsel then followed up with a more
specific request for the missing materials, as well some other items, all of which
were covered by the original subpoenas.75 After several weeks with no response,
Webster reported that Plaintiffs had retained Moore as an expert witness and that
Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel would be handling all issues related to the subpoenas.76
On February 25, 2011, Pfizer’s counsel sent Plaintiffs’ counsel a summary
of the discussions to date and reiterated its request for the following materials:
(a) all materials that have been publicly disclosed such as papers, presentations including PowerPoint slides, and speeches (these are the materials that Webster originally agreed to provide in his September 2, 2010 e-mail, but were never provided);
(b) all communications between the recipients of the subpoenas and any plaintiff attorneys regarding Chantix (for Mr. Moore, this would not apply for dates after his retention);
(c) any research protocols or guidelines, including all versions or drafts of protocols that were used for data analysis;
(d) any search terms used, including lists of any search terms used, including but not limited to standardized medical queries, or “SMQs”;
(e) a copy of the database searched or a sufficient description of the database to allow us to reproduce the searches (for example, if Mr. Moore simply searched the FDA AERS database without alteration,
75 Campbell Letter, Jan. 12, 2011, Ex. 59. 76 Webster E-mail, Feb. 18, 2011, Ex. 60.
Case 2:09-cv-02039-IPJ Document 214 Filed 03/16/11 Page 26 of 38
23
tell us that, or let us know how his database differs from the FDA AERS database);
(f) results of any searches (but please identify the results by date and search terms so that we can tell which results are tied to which searches);
(g) any inclusion and exclusion criteria, with criteria specifically defined;
(h) any adverse event reports excluded from the analyses;
(i) any specific definitions used in collecting or analyzing the data;
(j) a copy of the ISMP QuarterWatch dictionary referred to in Mr. Moore’s most recent publication, which is discussed below;
(k) a copy of any Freedom of Information Act requests regarding any adverse event data related to Chantix and the results of any such requests; and
(l) log files for all statistical analyses run.77
On March 1, 2011, Plaintiffs’ counsel responded to Pfizer.78 Despite
acknowledging that there were e-mail communications between Moore and at least
one plaintiffs’ attorney that would be responsive to the subpoenas, as well as other
requested materials, Plaintiffs’ counsel refused to produce these items because they
were not part of Pfizer’s original arrangement with Webster in October 2010:
Request: “(b) all communications between the recipients of the subpoenas and any plaintiff attorneys regarding Chantix (for Mr. Moore, this would not apply for dates after his retention);
77 Haston E-mail, Feb. 25, 2011, Ex. 61. 78 Cory E-mail, Mar. 1, 2011, Ex. 62.
Case 2:09-cv-02039-IPJ Document 214 Filed 03/16/11 Page 27 of 38
24
Plaintiffs’ Response: “This request is outside the scope of the October letter agreement, I understand that most are emails between Kristian Rasmussen and Mr. Moore. Again, We might be willing to produce these documents if we can come to a permanent resolution of this dispute.”79
Pfizer informed Plaintiffs’ counsel that the October 2010 arrangement with
Webster included an express reservation of Pfizer’s right to seek additional
information under the subpoenas. In response, Plaintiffs offered to produce only
the same materials that Webster previously provided, but for all of the ISMP
reports to date.80 Pfizer’s counsel made clear that it required a full production of
the items listed above, but Plaintiffs refused to agree.
Although the parties met and conferred on these issues, an agreement could
not be reached. Plaintiffs’ counsel initially expressed a willingness to produce
communications with attorneys and certain other materials. They later withdrew
their offer, however, because the parties could not reach a complete agreement on
production and because Pfizer would not agree to forfeit its ability to seek
additional information if necessary.
79 Id. 80 Cory E-mail, Mar. 10, 2011, Ex. 63.
Case 2:09-cv-02039-IPJ Document 214 Filed 03/16/11 Page 28 of 38
25
LEGAL ARGUMENT
THE COURT SHOULD COMPEL PRODUCTION IN RESPONSE TO PFIZER’S SUBPOENAS
A. The Information Sought by Pfizer Is Relevant
To compel production in response to a subpoena, the party seeking
enforcement must make a threshold showing that discovery is relevant to its claims
or defenses. See Parson & Whittemore Enter. Corp. v. Cello Energy LLC, No. 09-
00631-CG-B, 2010 WL 1994857, at *2 (S.D. Ala. Mar. 29, 2010). Relevance is
construed broadly. Id. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit discovery of
“any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(b)(1); see also Parson, 2010 WL 1994857, at *2 (“The term ‘relevant’
should be ‘construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that
reasonably could lead to other matter that bears on, any issue that is or may be in
the case.’”) (quoting Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Southeast Floating Docks, Inc., 231
F.R.D. 426, 430 (M.D. Fla. 2005)).
1. Communications with Plaintiffs’ Lawyers Are Relevant
As noted above, Pfizer seeks two categories of information. The first is
communications with plaintiffs’ lawyers. In similar cases, courts have held that
such communications are relevant and compelled their production. In In re Methyl
Tertiary Butyl Ether (“MTBE”) Products Liability Litigation, the MDL court
compelled a non-profit organization, the Hamner Institute, to produce both its raw
Case 2:09-cv-02039-IPJ Document 214 Filed 03/16/11 Page 29 of 38
26
data and “any communications between [defendant] ExxonMobil and the Institute
relating to the study.” 269 F.R.D. at 365; see also Grider, 2005 WL 2030456, at
*2 (compelling production of communications between plaintiffs’ lawyers and
subpoena recipients, a physician association and the association’s vice president);
In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 997, 1995 WL
535077, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 5, 1995) (holding communications between non-
profit organization and defense counsel “are not shielded from discovery”).
As mentioned, Plaintiffs’ counsel recently admitted that there were
communications between at least one plaintiff attorney and Moore prior to Moore’s
recent retention as a plaintiff expert. These communications are relevant. Given
Moore’s and Furberg’s ties to the plaintiffs’ bar and their involvement in other
pharmaceutical litigations, the communications are necessary to explore the extent
to which, if at all, litigation interests may have influenced the ISMP reports.
2. The Underlying Methodology and Data Are Relevant
The second category of information that Pfizer seeks is materials describing
the methodology and data underlying the ISMP reports. Such materials, too, have
been found relevant and compellable in other similar cases. For example, in
Deitchman v. E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., a pharmaceutical product liability case, the
Seventh Circuit vacated the lower court’s decision denying the defendant’s motion
to compel. 740 F.2d 556, 566 (7th Cir. 1984). In that case, the defendant drug
Case 2:09-cv-02039-IPJ Document 214 Filed 03/16/11 Page 30 of 38
27
manufacturer subpoenaed the underlying data from a University of Chicago
registry and its custodian, Dr. Arthur Herbst, because the registry formed the
foundation of several studies central to the litigation. Id. at 557-58. In vacating
the lower court’s ruling, the Seventh Circuit recognized that, if the defendant were
not given access to the underlying data, then it would be deprived of its ability to
effectively challenge Dr. Herbst’s findings:
What [the defendant] is threatened with is having Dr. Herbst as a potential expert witness against it without his ever taking the stand or being subject to cross-examination. The situation is unique because there is placed in the hands of a nonwitness the capability of influencing the verdict far beyond that enjoyed normally by the most qualified expert witness who does take the stand. . . . Certainly, Squibb is entitled to cross-examine plaintiffs’ experts on the data underlying their opinions regarding DES.
Id. at 561-62 (emphasis added); see also In re MTBE Prods. Liab. Litig., 269
F.R.D. at 365 (noting that non-profit organization’s study is “highly relevant” and
compelling production of “any raw data from its MTBE study”); In re Brand Name
Prescription Drugs, 1995 WL 535077, at *3 (compelling production of underlying
documents compiled by non-party economic association).
And, in a similar dispute before this Court in the breast implant MDL
presided over by Judge Pointer in the 1990s, the subpoena recipient, Brigham and
Women’s Hospital, voluntarily turned over the type of data and methodology
information that Pfizer is seeking here. See In re Silicone Gel Breast Implants
Case 2:09-cv-02039-IPJ Document 214 Filed 03/16/11 Page 31 of 38
28
Prods. Liab. Litig., No. CV 92-P-10000S, 1996 WL 1358526, at *1 (N.D. Ala.
Apr. 11, 1996) (Pointer, J.) (noting that the subpoena recipient “has largely
complied with the subpoena, producing various documents describing the grant
applications, protocols and methodology of the study, including blank
questionnaires”).
Here, Pfizer’s request for materials describing the methodology and data
underlying the ISMP reports is relevant because these materials provide the
foundation for the ISMP reports, which were a catalyst for this litigation and form
a basis for Plaintiffs’ claims in the litigation.81 Indeed, Pfizer’s subpoena requests
are no different than Plaintiffs’ own third-party subpoenas to discover the
underlying data for a Chantix clinical trial.82 As noted above, the ISMP reports
provide only a general description of the methodology that Moore and Furberg
employed, and that methodology changes over time.83 This information is central
to Pfizer’s ability to challenge the science underlying Plaintiffs’ claims and to
cross-examine Plaintiffs’ experts. Also, because Moore, Furberg, and the other
subpoena recipients are the only ones in possession of the requested information,
Pfizer cannot obtain it from another source. Thus, Pfizer has satisfied the broad
criteria for relevance.
81 Master Compl. ¶¶ 53-63. 82 Subpoena to Dr. Douglas E. Jorenby, May 24, 2010, Ex. 64.
Case 2:09-cv-02039-IPJ Document 214 Filed 03/16/11 Page 32 of 38
29
B. The Information Sought by Pfizer Is Not Privileged or Protected
On March 10, 2011, Plaintiffs filed objections to Pfizer’s subpoenas in
which they asserted several privileges, namely the “attorney-client privilege, the
consulting expert privilege, the peer review material privilege, the pre-publication
research privilege, the journalistic privilege, or any other privilege.”84 None of
these privileges bar the production Pfizer is seeking.
1. Moore’s Retention as an Expert Does Not Shield Him
Neither the attorney-client privilege nor the consulting expert privilege
shield Moore from Pfizer’s subpoenas. The attorney-client privilege does not
protect communications between an attorney and an expert. See Grider, 2005 WL
2030456, at *3 (expert’s communications with plaintiffs’ attorneys were “clearly
not protected by the attorney-client privilege”). Here, Plaintiffs’ objections state
that they have retained Moore as a consulting expert.85 Because Plaintiffs’ counsel
do not represent Moore, the attorney-client privilege does not apply. The attorney-
client privilege likewise does not extend to Furberg or any of the other subpoena
recipients, who have neither been retained as experts nor are represented by
Plaintiffs’ counsel.86
83 See supra at 16-19. 84 Pls.’ Resp. and Objections to Non-Party Subpoenas 5, Mar. 10, 2011, Ex. 65. 85 Id. at 4. 86 Id.
Case 2:09-cv-02039-IPJ Document 214 Filed 03/16/11 Page 33 of 38
30
The so-called “consulting expert” privilege also does not apply. A party’s
retention of an expert does not shield that expert from discovery regarding facts
that took place prior to the retention. See Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Co. v.
Cooper Indus., Inc., 166 F.R.D. at 482 (“[R]ule 26(b)(4)(B) permits a party to
engage in discovery with respect to information consultative experts acquired prior
to being retained by an opposing party in anticipation of the underlying
litigation.”); Indus. Maritime Carriers, Inc. v. PT (Persero) Inka, 179 F.R.D. 153,
155 (E.D. Pa. 1998) (same); Eliasen v. Hamilton, 111 F.R.D. 396, 403 (N.D. Ill.
1986) (same). This longstanding rule is captured in Pretrial Order No. 4, which
states regarding experts that “nothing in this agreement is intended to bar discovery
of documents that are otherwise discoverable from a party or third party outside of
the context of expert discovery.”87 Accordingly, the fact of Moore’s retention,
which took place more than six months after being served with Pfizer’s subpoenas
and more than two years after writing the first ISMP report on Chantix, is no
barrier to a full response to the subpoenas.
2. The Other Asserted Privileges Do Not Apply
Plaintiffs’ assertion of a “peer review material” privilege, “pre-publication
research” privilege, or journalistic privilege also fail to shield the subpoena
recipients from Pfizer’s subpoenas or apply in this case.
87 Pretrial Order No. 4: Discovery Plan 21, Feb. 24, 2010.
Case 2:09-cv-02039-IPJ Document 214 Filed 03/16/11 Page 34 of 38
31
Any privilege based upon peer review materials does not apply to the ISMP
reports because they were not peer reviewed. Peer review refers to the process in
which medical and scientific journals circulate potential articles to groups of
anonymous reviewers, who then provide input on the scientific validity of the
articles’ methods and conclusions.88 As mentioned above, the ISMP reports were
not peer reviewed or published in a medical journal, but were simply self-
published by ISMP without any independent verification of their scientific rigor.
In addition, the Eleventh Circuit does not recognize a privilege for peer-reviewed
materials. See Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1326 (11th Cir. 2007)
(“declining to recognize a privilege for documents relating to medical peer review
proceedings”); see also Univ. of Pa. v. E.E.O.C., 493 U.S. 182 (1990) (declining
“to create a new privilege against the disclosure of peer review materials”).
What Plaintiffs refer to as the “pre-publication research” privilege also does
not apply. While Rule 45 recognizes a protection for “confidential research” under
Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(i), it is the burden of the subpoena recipients to make that
showing, and they cannot satisfy their burden here. Stewart v. Mitchell Transport,
Civ. No. 01-2546, 2002 WL 1558210, at *7 (D. Kan. July 8, 2002). The phrase
“confidential research” remains undefined in Rule 45, but, in the context of non-
88 Federal Judicial Center, REFERENCE MANUAL ON SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE 74-75 (2d ed. 2000), Ex. 66.
Case 2:09-cv-02039-IPJ Document 214 Filed 03/16/11 Page 35 of 38
32
profit organizations or academic institutions, courts have interpreted “confidential
research” to mean any information that if disclosed would discourage the
willingness of research subjects to participate in studies or share private
information. See In re MTBE Prods. Liab. Litig., 269 F.R.D. at 364-65.
Pfizer is not seeking confidential research here. First of all, any
communications between the subpoena recipients and plaintiffs’ attorneys
regarding Chantix do not fit anyone’s definition of “confidential research.”
Second, Pfizer’s request for information regarding the methodologies that Moore
and Furberg used in writing the ISMP reports is also not confidential. The ISMP
reports themselves purport to describe their methodologies, even though the
descriptions are vague and lacking in sufficient detail for another researcher to
replicate them, and ISMP used the media to disseminate its conclusions. Third,
the underlying data that Pfizer is seeking is not confidential because AERS
contains no private patient information. 89 Pfizer is merely seeking to understand
how Moore “cleans” or modifies the raw AERS data in order to create his own
database, so that Pfizer can accurately replicate his methods.
89 Plaintiffs also object to producing any documents “that contain or constitute trade secrets,
proprietary, or confidential business information,” but they provide no basis for the objection. Pls.’ Resp. and Objections to Non-Party Subpoenas at 5.
Case 2:09-cv-02039-IPJ Document 214 Filed 03/16/11 Page 36 of 38
33
Any additional privileges asserted by Plaintiffs are unsupported and do not
apply in this case. Therefore, Plaintiffs should provide complete responses to
Pfizer’s subpoenas.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court should grant Pfizer’s motion to
compel.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Joseph G. Petrosinelli Joseph G. Petrosinelli Williams & Connolly LLP 725 Twelfth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (202) 434-5000 Email: [email protected]
Loren H. Brown DLA Piper LLP (US) 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020-1104 Phone: (212) 835-6000 Email: [email protected] F.M. (“Tripp”) Haston, III Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP One Federal Place 1819 Fifth Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35206 Phone: (205) 521-8303 Email: [email protected] Lead Counsel for Defendants
Case 2:09-cv-02039-IPJ Document 214 Filed 03/16/11 Page 37 of 38
34
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 16, 2011, I electronically filed the foregoing
with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification
to the attorneys of record.
/s F. M. Haston, III Of Counsel
Case 2:09-cv-02039-IPJ Document 214 Filed 03/16/11 Page 38 of 38