30(b)(6) deposition of party re foreign subsidiary knowledge is ordered
Ethypharm S.A. France v. Abbott Laboratories, Civil Action No.08-126-SLR-MPT, November 15, 2010.
Thynge, M. J. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed on discovery matters under the Federal Rules rather than the Hague Convention is granted in part and denied in part.
This is an antitrust case between two pharmaceutical manufacturers competing over the sale of fenofibrate in the United States. Plaintiff seeks an order requiring defendant to produce a witness to testify as to knowledge of wholly-owned subsidiaries located overseas (including knowledge of agreements alleged to be anticompetitive which are the subject of this litigation. Defendant opposes the motion on the basis that the foreign nationals at issue are not asserted to be within the subpoena power of the court, have not been served with deposition subpoenas, and are not asserted to be officers, directors or managing agents of any party to the action. The issue presented is the duty of a corporate patent to produce a 30(b)(6) witness to testify regarding the knowledge of a subsidiary. The court denies plaintiff’s motion insofar as it relates to depositions of current employees of foreign affiliates, but requires defendant to produce a 30(b)(6) witness to testify with knowledge of both defendant and its subsidiary Fournier.
