Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

settlementlitigationattorneysubpoenadiscoveryappealtrustpatentcomplianceantitrustattorney-client privilege
settlementlitigationsubpoenadiscoveryappealtrustpatentantitrust

Related Cases

Demov, Morris, Levin & Shein v. Glantz, 53 N.Y.2d 553, 428 N.E.2d 387, 444 N.Y.S.2d 55
View Case »
Christeson v. Roper, 574 U.S. 373, 135 S.Ct. 891, 190 L.Ed.2d 763, 83 USLW 4071, 15 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 582, 2015 Daily Journal D.A.R. 753, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 56
View Case »
Henry Enterprises, Inc. v. Smith, 225 Kan. 615, 592 P.2d 915
View Case »
Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 64 L.Ed.2d 333
View Case »
Golden Eagle Distributing Corp. v. Burroughs Corp., 103 F.R.D. 124, 40 Fed.R.Serv.2d 346
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

F.T.C. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 778 F.3d 142, 414 U.S.App.D.C. 188, 2015-1 Trade Cases P 79,073, 90 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1415, 114 U.S.P.Q.2d 1017

Facts

In 2009, the FTC initiated an antitrust investigation into a patent settlement agreement between Boehringer, a brand-name pharmaceutical company, and Barr, a generic drug manufacturer. The FTC issued an administrative subpoena for documents related to the settlement, which Boehringer initially failed to comply with, leading to an enforcement proceeding in the District Court. Although Boehringer eventually certified compliance, it withheld numerous documents under the work product doctrine and attorney-client privilege, prompting the FTC to challenge these claims in court.

In 2009, the FTC initiated an antitrust investigation into a patent settlement agreement between Boehringer, a brand-name pharmaceutical company, and Barr, a generic drug manufacturer. The FTC issued an administrative subpoena for documents related to the settlement, which Boehringer initially failed to comply with, leading to an enforcement proceeding in the District Court.

Issue

Did the District Court err in its application of the work product doctrine regarding the documents withheld by Boehringer, particularly in its classification of financial analyses and forecasts as opinion work product?

Did the District Court err in its application of the work product doctrine regarding the documents withheld by Boehringer, particularly in its classification of financial analyses and forecasts as opinion work product?

Rule

The work product doctrine protects materials prepared in anticipation of litigation, distinguishing between opinion work product, which is highly protected, and fact work product, which may be discoverable under certain circumstances if substantial need is shown.

The work product doctrine protects materials prepared in anticipation of litigation, distinguishing between opinion work product, which is highly protected, and fact work product, which may be discoverable under certain circumstances if substantial need is shown.

Analysis

The Court of Appeals found that the District Court had correctly determined that the settlement documents were prepared in anticipation of litigation and thus entitled to work product protection. However, it also concluded that the District Court had misapplied the distinction between opinion and fact work product, leading to an erroneous conclusion that the financial analyses were wholly opinion work product. The Court emphasized that the FTC had demonstrated a substantial need for the financial documents, which warranted their discovery.

The Court of Appeals found that the District Court had correctly determined that the settlement documents were prepared in anticipation of litigation and thus entitled to work product protection. However, it also concluded that the District Court had misapplied the distinction between opinion and fact work product, leading to an erroneous conclusion that the financial analyses were wholly opinion work product.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's findings regarding the work product protection of the settlement documents but vacated its ruling on the financial analyses and forecasts, remanding for further consideration of their discoverability.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's findings regarding the work product protection of the settlement documents but vacated its ruling on the financial analyses and forecasts, remanding for further consideration of their discoverability.

Who won?

The FTC prevailed in part, as the Court of Appeals found that it had demonstrated substantial need for the financial analyses and forecasts, which should be discoverable despite Boehringer's claims of work product protection.

The FTC prevailed in part, as the Court of Appeals found that it had demonstrated substantial need for the financial analyses and forecasts, which warranted their discovery.

You must be