PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Beaudry
BETWEEN:
MERCK FROSST CANADA & CO.
and
NU-PHARM INC., BERNARD SHERMAN
AND RICHARD BENYAK
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] These reasons follow the hearings on April 16, 17, 18 and 19, 2007, at Toronto, of seven motions, brought pursuant to Rule 35(2)(b), Federal Court Rules (the Rules), SOR/98-106, in appeal from four Orders of Prothonotary Aronovitch, as set out in the following sequence:
a) First Order (Making Inquiries Order) dated August 9, 2006, Appendix “I”;
b) Second Order (the August Refusals Order) dated August 9, 2006, Appendix “II”;
c) Third Order (the November Order) dated November 24, 2006 attached as Appendix “III” to these reasons; and
d) Fourth Order (the Sherman Order) dated August 9, 2006, attached as Appendix “IV” to these reasons.
[2] Originating from parties on both sides, the seven motions consist of a total of ten appeals of the four Orders by Prothonotary Aronovitch that deal with matters in dispute at the discovery stage of this longstanding patent infringement action, Appendix “V” attached to these reasons provides a chronology of the present motions.
[3] One of the motions in appeal (the first motion), was brought by the defendant Nu-Pharm Inc. (Nu-Pharm), on October 10, 2006 and seeks to set aside certain parts of two Orders dated August 9, 2006:
a) the Making Inquiries Order (Appeal #1), pursuant to which Nu-Pharm was ordered to make inquiries of various non-parties to this action; and
b) the August Refusals Order (Appeal #2), in which Nu-Pharm was ordered to answer certain questions refused on examination for discovery of its representative, Mr. Benyak.
[4] The second motion in appeal (the second motion), was brought by the Plaintiffs Merck & Co., Inc. and Merck Frosst Canada & Co. (Merck) on October 12, 2006 and seeks to set aside parts of two Orders dated August 9, 2006:
a) the Making Inquiries Order (Appeal #3), in which Prothonotary Aronovitch ruled that the Defendants, Nu-Pharm and Mr. Richard Benyak (Benyak) need not otherwise make inquires of certain third parties, including Apotex Inc. (including its Novex Pharma division), Brantford, Signa and Trillium; and
b) the August Refusals Order (Appeal #4), in which Prothonotary Aronovitch limited the nature and extent of inquiries that Nu-Pharm can make of non-parties including the above-mentioned third parties and certain former employees, including Van Doornik, Beyger, Culp and Saban. The August Refusals Order also gave effect to claims of solicitor/client privilege and ordered that Nu-Pharm and Benyak did not have to answer 17 additional questions proffered by Merck.
[5] The third motion in appeal (the third motion) was brought by Benyak on October 12, 2006 and seeks to set aside certain portions of both the Making Inquiries Order (Appeal #5), and the August Refusals Order (Appeal #6), for the same reasons sought by Nu-Pharm in its motion to set aside the impugned portions of both Orders, as noted above in the first motion.
[6] The fourth motion in appeal (the fourth motion) was brought by Merck on December 4, 2006 (Appeal #7), and seeks to set aside the November Order of Prothonotary Aronovitch, in which she ordered that Nu-Pharm and Benyak need not make any inquiries or requests for documents from Beyger, Culp, Van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium or Saban beyond any previously ordered and stood down certain questions contained in Schedule “E” to the Order, where these questions involve inquiries of the aforementioned persons, until the results of the inquiries and requests previously ordered are known. In other words, the Defendants Nu-Pharm and Benyak, do not have to make further inquiries beyond those permitted under Rule 241 have been provided.
[7] The fifth motion in appeal (the fifth motion) was brought by Nu-Pharm, on December 4, 2006 (Appeal #8), and seeks to set aside parts of the November Order of Prothonotary Aronovitch, in which she ordered that Nu-Pharm and Benyak respond to certain questions. Nu-Pharm also seeks to set aside the awarding of costs to Merck, at the high end of Column V of Tariff B.
[8] The sixth motion in appeal (the sixth motion) was brought by Benyak (Appeal #9) on December 4, 2006, who seeks to set aside that part of the November Order, which orders him to answer certain questions refused on his examination for discovery. In addition, Benyak seeks to reverse the award of costs to Merck in relation to the November Order.
[9] Finally, the seventh motion in appeal (the seventh motion) was brought by Merck (Appeal #10) on October 13, 2006, and seeks to set aside parts of the Sherman Order of Prothonotary Aronovitch dated August 9, 2006, wherein she ruled that Defendant Dr. Bernard Sherman (Sherman) does not have to make inquiries of corporations controlled by him and employees thereof.
I. BACKGROUND
[10] This action was commenced by Statement of Claim dated April 29, 1999. Merck alleges that in light of their non-arms length relationship with Apotex Inc. (Apotex), which was found to have infringed Merck’s exclusive patent interest in the Canadian Patent Number 1,275,349 (the ‘349 Patent), the defendants created an elaborate diversion scheme, in order to circumvent the permanent injunction rendered against Apotex by Justice W. Andrew MacKay in the 1994 decision of Merck & Co. v. Apotex Inc., [1994] F.C.J. No. 1898 (F.C.T.D.) (QL), and thereby brought to market the infringing product (Apo-Enalapril) under a new name, Nu-Enalapril. It is Merck’s position that Nu-Enalapril tablets are not only identical to Apo-Enalapril tablets, as indicated by Nu-Pharm in its materials filed with the Court (File No. T-2552-97), but it also infringes the claims in the ‘349 Patent because it is an enalapril or an enalapril maleate, the generic name of the chemical compounds that constitute the fundamental claims of the ‘349 Patent.
[11] In order to test and prove its theory of the case, Merck has sought through discoveries to fit together the various elements of the sodium-enalapril non-infringing scheme, which involves not only Apotex’s principal, the defendant Dr. Bernard Sherman, but also Nu-Pharm, Apotex’s sister company and its President Benyak, in both their personal and corporate capacities. To get to the bottom of the composition and manufacture of Nu-Enalapril, essential elements of the issue in action, Merck has sought to question not only the defendants but to have them make inquiries and produce documents from those such as former and present employees of Nu-Pharm, its suppliers and manufacturers, who also are intimately related to Apotex within the Sherman Group of companies.
[12] Merck wants to establish that Nu-Enalapril does indeed infringe the ‘349 Patent. It wants also to adduce evidence by way of discoveries to assemble the essential elements required to pierce the corporate veil behind which, Merck argues, Sherman, the directing mind of Apotex, uses Nu-Pharm as Apotex’s alter ego, a sham, in other words, to shield his sophisticated strategy of subterfuge to circumvent the permanent injunction granted by Justice MacKay in 1994.
[13] For their part, the defendants vigorously defend Merck’s claims of infringement on the basis that the subject claims in the ‘349 Patent are either invalid on the stated grounds, or do not encompass Nu-Pharm’s enalapril formulation as contained in Nu-Enalapril. Nu-Pharm also commenced a Counterclaim challenging the validity of the ‘349 Patent, seeking declaratory relief to in effect declare void the ‘349 Patent.
[14] On March 7, 2000, Merck won a contempt of Court application against Apotex for continuing to sell Apo-Enalapril in spite of the permanent injunction. In that decision, Merck & Co. v. Apotex Inc. (2000), 5 C.P.R. (4th) 1, Justice MacKay held as follows at paragraphs 40 and 41:
[40] In my opinion, it is beyond a reasonable doubt that both Apotex by its officers, and Dr. Sherman in his personal capacity, committed contempt by selling, and in Dr. Sherman's case by authorizing the selling, of Apo-Enalapril product after Dr. Sherman had read the Reasons for Judgment dated December 14, 1994, which indicated that as of that day the Court had resolved that Merck was entitled to a permanent injunction prohibiting Apotex by its officers, and others, from infringing upon the valid claims of Merck's patent.
[41] It is urged for Dr. Sherman that he not be found personally in contempt. Yet he was the "directing mind" of Apotex, it was his decision about the effect of the Reasons for Judgment on December 14 that led to sales of Apo- Enalapril on the following two days, just as it was his decision to stop sales finally on the 16th of December. He knew and had read the Reasons for Judgment and his decisions were the key to conduct of Apotex officers and staff. In my opinion he committed contempt, as did the corporate defendant.
[15] On July 13, 2001, Merck was granted leave by Prothonotary Aronovitch to commence a Third Party Action naming Apotex Pharmaceuticals Holdings Inc. (APHI) and Apotex, as Third Parties by Counterclaim. In its Reply and Defence to Counterclaim, Merck pleaded that Nu-Pharm’s Counterclaim was an abuse of process, since Nu-Pharm’s right to seek a declaration of invalidity was barred on the grounds of res judicata and issue estoppel. Nu-Pharm subsequently discontinued its Counterclaim (Discontinuance dated August 27, 2001).
[16] On November 19, 2001, Merck moved for an Order that the Third Party Claim against APHI and Apotex continue, despite the discontinuance of Nu-Pharm’s Counterclaim. In the alternative, Merck sought an Order adding APHI and Apotex as defendants to the within action, or an Order that would result in APHI and Apotex being named as defendants to a new action to be consolidated with the within action. On February 18, 2002, Prothonotary Aronovitch denied Merck’s motion.
[17] In its Amended Amended Fresh as Amended Reply (Reply) dated December 31, 2002, Merck specifically denied that any of the claims in the ‘349 Patent were invalid, and stated that Nu-Pharm and the individual defendants were bound by the permanent injunction issued against Apotex by Justice MacKay in 1994.
[18] By Order dated June 24, 2002, Prothonotary Aronovitch found that Sherman controls the Apotex group of companies, and ordered Sherman to deliver further and better affidavits of documents listing all documents in their power, possession and control, including in the case of Sherman, those in the power, possession and control of the “Apotex group of companies” and produce such documents, unexpurgated, in respect of the following, subject to any claims of privilege. This list of relevant categories of documents to be produced within the power, possession and control of those companies pursuant to Rule 225(a), included documents related to the composition, formulation and active medicinal ingredient in Apo-Enalapril tablets.
[19] At the hearings of the Plaintiffs’ Compliance Motion held March 22-23, 2006, the Court was advised that Sherman has made inquiries within the Apotex group of companies and has produced documents within the power, possession and control of the Apotex group of companies in response to discovery questions, including the admission that the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) in the allegedly infringing Nu-Enalapril is “enalapril maleate.” However, Prothonotary Aronovitch held in her Fourth Order that Sherman equivocated as to the rest of the contents of the Nu-Enalapril tablets, information that is relevant and needed to be answered.
[20] Consequently, Merck brought a motion for an order compelling the defendant, Sherman to answer outstanding undertakings given on his examination for discovery held on April 27-30 and May 3-5, 2004; to answer questions refused on said examination for discovery; and to re-attend on discovery to answer further questions, including questions arising out of the answers provided and documents produced in respect of his undertakings and responses to outstanding questions. Merck also sought costs.
[21] In addition, Merck brought similar motions for orders compelling the defendants Nu-Pharm and Benyak to answer the undertakings given on the examination for discovery of Benyak, in his corporate and individual capacity, held on April 6, 13, 14, 15 and 16, June 11, August, 24, 25, and 26, 2004 and March 4, 2005; to answer discovery questions refused by Benyak; to answer discovery questions asked by way of written interrogatory; to re-attend on discovery to answer further questions, including questions arising out of the answers provided and documents produced in respect of the above matters; and an order granting Merck its costs of the motion.
[22] The above referenced motions were heard in part, in Toronto, over the course of eight hearing days held April 11, June 5, 6, 12, 13, October 18, 19, and 20, 2006. Among others, Prothonotary Aronovitch rendered three Orders on August 9, 2006 and a fourth on November 24, 2006. They form the object of the present ten appeals.
II. PERTINENT LEGISLATION
[23] The guiding principles of the Rules of Discovery are delineated in Rule 3, which provides as follows:
General principle 3. These Rules shall be interpreted and applied so as to secure the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of every proceeding on its merits. |
Principe général 3. Les présentes règles sont interprétées et appliquées de façon à permettre d’apporter une solution au litige qui soit juste et la plus expéditive et économique possible. |
[24] Rules 233 and 238(1) make provision for the production of any document from and examination of a non party to the action respectively, as described below:
Production from non-party with leave 233. (1) On motion, the Court may order the production of any document that is in the possession of a person who is not a party to the action, if the document is relevant and its production could be compelled at trial.
Personal service on non-party (2) Notice of a motion for an order under subsection (1) shall be personally served on the person who is in possession of the document.
Preparation of certified copy
(3) The Court may, in an order under subsection (1), give directions for the preparation of a certified copy of the document to be used instead of the original.
Examination of non-parties with leave 238. (1) A party to an action may bring a motion for leave to examine for discovery any person not a party to the action, other than an expert witness for a party, who might have information on an issue in the action. |
Production d’un document en la possession d’un tiers 233. (1) La Cour peut, sur requête, ordonner qu’un document en la possession d’une personne qui n’est pas une partie à l’action soit produit s’il est pertinent et si sa production pourrait être exigée lors de l’instruction.
Signification à personne (2) L’avis d’une requête présentée pour obtenir l’ordonnance visée au paragraphe (1) est signifié à personne à la personne qui a le document en sa possession. Préparation d’une copie certifiée conforme (3) La Cour peut, dans l’ordonnance visée au paragraphe (1), donner des directives au sujet de la préparation d’une copie certifiée conforme du document pour qu’elle tienne lieu d’original.
Interrogatoire d’un tiers
238. (1) Une partie à une action peut, par voie de requête, demander l’autorisation de procéder à l’interrogatoire préalable d’une personne qui n’est pas une partie, autre qu’un témoin expert d’une partie, qui pourrait posséder des renseignements sur une question litigieuse soulevée dans l’action. |
[25] The scope and procedures for examinations for discovery in matters before the Federal Courts are set out in Rules 240 to 244 of the Rules, which provide as follows:
Scope of examination 240. A person being examined for discovery shall answer, to the best of the person's knowledge, information and belief, any question that (a) is relevant to any unadmitted allegation of fact in a pleading filed by the party being examined or by the examining party; or
(b) concerns the name or address of any person, other than an expert witness, who might reasonably be expected to have knowledge relating to a matter in question in the action.
Obligation to inform self 241. Subject to paragraph 242(1)(d), a person who is to be examined for discovery, other than a person examined under rule 238, shall, before the examination, become informed by making inquiries of any present or former officer, servant, agent or employee of the party, including any who are outside Canada, who might be expected to have knowledge relating to any matter in question in the action.
Objections permitted 242. (1) A person may object to a question asked in an examination for discovery on the ground that
(a) the answer is privileged;
(b) the question is not relevant to any unadmitted allegation of fact in a pleading filed by the party being examined or by the examining party;
(c) the question is unreasonable or unnecessary; or (d) it would be unduly onerous to require the person to make the inquiries referred to in rule 241.
Objections not permitted (2) A person other than a person examined under rule 238 may not object to a question asked in an examination for discovery on the ground that
(a) the answer would be evidence or hearsay;
(b) the question constitutes cross-examination.
Limit on examination
243. On motion, the Court may limit an examination for discovery that it considers to be oppressive, vexatious or unnecessary.
Examined party to be better informed 244. (1) Where a person being examined for discovery, other than a person examined under rule 238, is unable to answer a question, the examining party may require the person to become better informed and may conclude the examination, subject to obtaining answers to any remaining questions.
Further answers (2) A person being examined who is required to become better informed shall provide the information sought by the examining party by submitting to a continuation of the oral examination for discovery in respect of the information or, where the parties agree, by providing the information in writing. Information deemed part of examination (3) Information provided under subsection (2) is deemed to be part of the examination for discovery. |
Étendue de l’interrogatoire 240. La personne soumise à un interrogatoire préalable répond, au mieux de sa connaissance et de sa croyance, à toute question qui : a) soit se rapporte à un fait allégué et non admis dans un acte de procédure déposé par la partie soumise à l’interrogatoire préalable ou par la partie qui interroge; b) soit concerne le nom ou l’adresse d’une personne, autre qu’un témoin expert, dont il est raisonnable de croire qu’elle a une connaissance d’une question en litige dans l’action.
L’obligation de se renseigner 241. Sous réserve de l’alinéa 242(1)d), la personne soumise à un interrogatoire préalable, autre que celle interrogée aux termes de la règle 238, se renseigne, avant celui-ci, auprès des dirigeants, fonctionnaires, agents ou employés actuels ou antérieurs de la partie, y compris ceux qui se trouvent à l’extérieur du Canada, dont il est raisonnable de croire qu’ils pourraient détenir des renseignements au sujet de toute question en litige dans l’action. Objection permise 242. (1) Une personne peut soulever une objection au sujet de toute question posée lors d’un interrogatoire préalable au motif que, selon le cas : a) la réponse est protégée par un privilège de non-divulgation; b) la question ne se rapporte pas à un fait allégué et non admis dans un acte de procédure déposé par la partie soumise à l’interrogatoire ou par la partie qui l’interroge; c) la question est déraisonnable ou inutile; d) il serait trop onéreux de se renseigner auprès d’une personne visée à la règle 241.
Objection interdite (2) À l’exception d’une personne interrogée aux termes de la règle 238, nul ne peut s’opposer à une question posée lors d’un interrogatoire préalable au motif que, selon le cas : a) la réponse constituerait un élément de preuve ou du ouï-dire; b) la question constitue un contre-interrogatoire.
Droit de limiter l’interrogatoire 243. La Cour peut, sur requête, limiter les interrogatoires préalables qu’elle estime abusifs, vexatoires ou inutiles.
Obligation de mieux se renseigner 244. (1) Lorsqu’une partie soumet une personne, autre que celle visée à la règle 238, à un interrogatoire préalable et que celle-ci est incapable de répondre à une question, elle peut exiger que la personne se renseigne davantage et peut mettre fin à l’interrogatoire préalable à la condition d’obtenir les réponses aux questions qu’il lui reste à poser. Renseignements additionnels (2) La personne contrainte de mieux se renseigner fournit les renseignements demandés par la partie en se soumettant à nouveau à l’interrogatoire préalable oral ou, avec le consentement des parties, en fournissant les renseignements par écrit.
Effet des renseignements donnés (3) Les renseignements donnés aux termes du paragraphe (2) sont réputés faire partie de l’interrogatoire préalable. |
[26] The discretionary powers of the Courts with respect to the awarding of costs between parties are set out in Rule 400. The relevant passages are provided below:
Discretionary powers of Court 400. (1) The Court shall have full discretionary power over the amount and allocation of costs and the determination of by whom they are to be paid. [. . .] Factors in awarding costs (3) In exercising its discretion under subsection (1), the Court may consider
(a) the result of the proceeding; (b) the amounts claimed and the amounts recovered; (c) the importance and complexity of the issues; (d) the apportionment of liability; (e) any written offer to settle;
(f) any offer to contribute made under rule 421; (g) the amount of work; (h) whether the public interest in having the proceeding litigated justifies a particular award of costs;
(i) any conduct of a party that tended to shorten or unnecessarily lengthen the duration of the proceeding; (j) the failure by a party to admit anything that should have been admitted or to serve a request to admit;
(k) whether any step in the proceeding was
(i) improper, vexatious or unnecessary, or (ii) taken through negligence, mistake or excessive caution;
(l) whether more than one set of costs should be allowed, where two or more parties were represented by different solicitors or were represented by the same solicitor but separated their defence unnecessarily;
(m) whether two or more parties, represented by the same solicitor, initiated separate proceedings unnecessarily;
(n) whether a party who was successful in an action exaggerated a claim, including a counterclaim or third party claim, to avoid the operation of rules 292 to 299; and
(o) any other matter that it considers relevant.
Tariff B (4) The Court may fix all or part of any costs by reference to Tariff B and may award a lump sum in lieu of, or in addition to, any assessed costs. Directions re assessment (5) Where the Court orders that costs be assessed in accordance with Tariff B, the Court may direct that the assessment be performed under a specific column or combination of columns of the table to that Tariff.
Further discretion of Court
(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of these Rules, the Court may (a) award or refuse costs in respect of a particular issue or step in a proceeding;
(b) award assessed costs or a percentage of assessed costs up to and including a specified step in a proceeding; (c) award all or part of costs on a solicitor-and-client basis; or
(d) award costs against a successful party. Award and payment of costs
(7) Costs shall be awarded to the party who is entitled to receive the costs and not to the party's solicitor, but they may be paid to the party's solicitor in trust. |
Pouvoir discrétionnaire de la Cour 400. (1) La Cour a le pouvoir discrétionnaire de déterminer le montant des dépens, de les répartir et de désigner les personnes qui doivent les payer. [. . .] Facteurs à prendre en compte (3) Dans l’exercice de son pouvoir discrétionnaire en application du paragraphe (1), la Cour peut tenir compte de l’un ou l’autre des facteurs suivants : a) le résultat de l’instance; b) les sommes réclamées et les sommes recouvrées; c) l’importance et la complexité des questions en litige; d) le partage de la responsabilité; e) toute offre écrite de règlement; f) toute offre de contribution faite en vertu de la règle 421; g) la charge de travail; h) le fait que l’intérêt public dans la résolution judiciaire de l’instance justifie une adjudication particulière des dépens; i) la conduite d’une partie qui a eu pour effet d’abréger ou de prolonger inutilement la durée de l’instance; j) le défaut de la part d’une partie de signifier une demande visée à la règle 255 ou de reconnaître ce qui aurait dû être admis; k) la question de savoir si une mesure prise au cours de l’instance, selon le cas : (i) était inappropriée, vexatoire ou inutile, (ii) a été entreprise de manière négligente, par erreur ou avec trop de circonspection; l) la question de savoir si plus d’un mémoire de dépens devrait être accordé lorsque deux ou plusieurs parties sont représentées par différents avocats ou lorsque, étant représentées par le même avocat, elles ont scindé inutilement leur défense; m) la question de savoir si deux ou plusieurs parties représentées par le même avocat ont engagé inutilement des instances distinctes; n) la question de savoir si la partie qui a eu gain de cause dans une action a exagéré le montant de sa réclamation, notamment celle indiquée dans la demande reconventionnelle ou la mise en cause, pour éviter l’application des règles 292 à 299; o) toute autre question qu’elle juge pertinente.
Tarif B (4) La Cour peut fixer tout ou partie des dépens en se reportant au tarif B et adjuger une somme globale au lieu ou en sus des dépens taxés. Directives de la Cour (5) Dans le cas où la Cour ordonne que les dépens soient taxés conformément au tarif B, elle peut donner des directives prescrivant que la taxation soit faite selon une colonne déterminée ou une combinaison de colonnes du tableau de ce tarif. Autres pouvoirs discrétionnaires de la Cour (6) Malgré toute autre disposition des présentes règles, la Cour peut : a) adjuger ou refuser d’adjuger les dépens à l’égard d’une question litigieuse ou d’une procédure particulières; b) adjuger l’ensemble ou un pourcentage des dépens taxés, jusqu’à une étape précise de l’instance; c) adjuger tout ou partie des dépens sur une base avocat-client; d) condamner aux dépens la partie qui obtient gain de cause. Adjudication et paiement des dépens (7) Les dépens sont adjugés à la partie qui y a droit et non à son avocat, mais ils peuvent être payés en fiducie à celui-ci. |
[27] The Sherman Order raises the question of the obligations of an individual and any corporation that may be controlled directly or indirectly by the individual. Rule 225(a) outlines the options for an Order for disclosure. It states as follows:
Order for disclosure 225. On motion, the Court may order a party to disclose in an affidavit of documents all relevant documents that are in the possession, power or control of
(a) where the party is an individual, any corporation that is controlled directly or indirectly by the party; or (b) where the party is a corporation, (i) any corporation that is controlled directly or indirectly by the party, (ii) any corporation or individual that directly or indirectly controls the party, or
(iii) any corporation that is controlled directly or indirectly by a person who also directly or indirectly controls the party. |
Ordonnance de divulgation 225. La Cour peut, sur requête, ordonner à une partie de divulguer dans l’affidavit de documents l’existence de tout document pertinent qui est en la possession, sous l’autorité ou sous la garde de l’une ou l’autre des personnes suivantes : a) si la partie est un particulier, toute personne morale qui est contrôlée directement ou indirectement par la partie; b) si la partie est une personne morale : (i) toute personne morale qui est contrôlée directement ou indirectement par la partie, (ii) toute personne morale ou tout particulier qui contrôle directement ou indirectement la partie, (iii) toute personne morale qui est contrôlée directement ou indirectement par une personne qui contrôle aussi la partie, directement ou indirectement. |
[28] Interpretation of statutes including the Federal Courts Rules is guided by the provision in section 12 of the Interpretation Act :
Enactments deemed remedial 12. Every enactment is deemed remedial, and shall be given such fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation as best ensures the attainment of its objects. |
Principe et interprétation 12. Tout texte est censé apporter une solution de droit et s’interprète de la manière la plus équitable et la plus large qui soit compatible avec la réalisation de son objet. |
III. ANALYSIS
[29] These reasons follow the order in which the parties made their submissions, starting with the motions of Nu-Pharm brought on October 10, 2006. The motion by Merck against the August 9, 2006 Order with regard to the defendant Sherman is dealt with last.
A) THE MAKING OF INQUIRIES ORDER DATED AUGUST 9, 2006
[30] Upon motion of the Plaintiffs, Merck, to compel defendants Nu-Pharm and Benyak to answer the undertakings given and answer discovery questions refused on the examination for discovery of Benyak, in his corporate and individual capacity, Prothonotary Aronovitch ordered among other things that Nu-Pharm and Benyak will make inquiries of Joseph Beyger, Antony van Doornik and Dawn Culp, and will request of each of Apotex Inc. (including its Novex Pharma division), Brantford, Signa and Trillium that they produce to Nu-Pharm and Benyak relevant documents, whereby said requests are subject to reasonable limits, but Nu-Pharm and Benyak need not otherwise make inquiries of them. It is this aspect of the Making of Inquiries Order that attracted motions of appeal not only from Nu-Pharm and Benyak but also from Merck.
i) Standard of Review
[31] Where a decision of a Prothonotary is discretionary, the standard of review to be applied by the Federal Court judge is set out by the Federal Court of Appeal in Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd., [1993] 2 F.C. 425 at 462-65 (C.A.). This standard of review was approved by the Supreme Court of Canada in Z.I. Pompey Industrie v. ECU-Line N.V., [2003] 1. S.C.R. 450 at paragraph 18, and later slightly modified by the Federal Court of Appeal and slightly reformulated by Justice Robert Décary in Merck & Co. v. Apotex Inc., 2003 FCA 488, [2004] 2 F.C.R. 459 (F.C.A.) at paragraph 19:
19. […] Discretionary orders of Prothonotaries ought not be disturbed on appeal to a judge unless:
a) the questions raised in the motion are vital to the final issue of the case, or
b) the orders are clearly wrong, in the sense that the exercise of discretion by the prothonotary was based upon a wrong principle or upon a misapprehension of the facts.
[32] See also Merck & Co. v. Apotex Inc., 2003 FCA 438, [2003] F.C.J. No. 1725 (F.C.A.) (QL) where Justice Barry L. Strayer held as follows at paragraph 9:
9. It is common ground that when a motions judge hears an appeal from a prothonotary, assuming that no questions vital to the final issue of the case are involved, the reviewing judge can only exercise his or her own discretion in place of the prothonotary's if he or she concludes that the exercise of discretion by the prothonotary "was based upon a wrong principle or upon a misapprehension of facts ...". (Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd. [1993] 2 F.C. 425 at para. 95) F.C.A. In the present case the question for this Court is whether the prothonotary's decision was based upon a wrong principle. If so, the learned motions judge should have set it aside and exercised his own discretion.
[33] I adopt the formulation of my colleague Justice Frederick E. Gibson in Apotex Inc. v. Wellcome Foundation Ltd., 2007 FC 236, [2007] F.C.J. No. 344 (F.C.) (QL), who dealt with multiple motions on appeal of multiple orders as is the case here. He said at paragraph 15:
[…] the orders under review should not be interfered with unless the learned Prothonotary's decisions of either of them were or was clearly wrong in the sense that the exercise of discretion by the Prothonotary was based upon a wrong principle or upon a misapprehension of the facts.
[34] So too, I shall not interfere with discretionary decisions of Prothonotary Aronovitch unless her decisions are clearly wrong in the sense that the exercise of her discretion was based on a wrong principle or upon a misapprehension of the facts.
ii) The Nu-Pharm Appeal of the Making of Inquiries Order
[35] In its motion on appeal from parts of the Making of Inquiries Order, Nu-Pharm submits that the Prothonotary erred in determining that Nu-Pharm should be required to make inquiries of non-parties to the action or of former employees in respect of their activities subsequent to their employment at Nu-Pharm. Furthermore, Nu-Pharm has not appealed those rulings in the Making Inquiries Order that require Nu-Pharm to make inquiries of its former employees, Mr. Doornik, Mr. Beyger and Ms. Culp, that relate solely to their activities while they were employed by Nu-Pharm. Consequently, Merck improperly seeks to have Nu-Pharm make inquiries of persons (individuals and corporations) who are not parties to the action and over whom it has neither power nor control, including the following:
(a) Apotex (and “anyone at Apotex”);
(b) Signa, which Nu-Pharm never had a relationship with “[p]rior to working with Signa on Nu-Enalapril”, and which Merck acknowledges is at least one “generation removed from” Mr. Benyak (and thus, Nu-Pharm):
2944 Q. […] I want to know the details of the substance involved.
MR. RADOMSKI: But you'll get that from Signa.
MR. EDMONDS: Maybe I won't, maybe I will. Signa suppliers are another generation removed from Mr. Benyak.
MR. RADOMSKI: Sorry, Signa?
MR. EDMONDS: Signa suppliers is an entire another generation removed from Mr. Benyak.
Benyak Transcript, April 15, 2004 pp. 677, 686-7, Q. 2907, 2944
(c) Novex Pharma (a division of Apotex) (“Novex”);
Benyak Transcript, April 6, 2004, p. 21, Q. 66 and p. 85, Q. 326
(d) A number of former employees of Nu-Pharm, who not only left Nu-Pharm to go to Novex (a non-party to the proceeding), but have also since left Novex; or who are, for the reasons stated, otherwise unavailable to Nu-Pharm:
(i) Mr. Beyer: He is no longer employed with Novex Pharma, much less Nu-Pharm. Neither Mr. Benyak nor, to his knowledge, anyone at Nu-Pharm, have any contact information for Mr. Beyger.
(ii) Mr. van Doornik: When asked if Mr. van Doornik was “still at Novex Pharma”, Mr. Benyak stated, “I think he’s retired now. I haven’t talked to him in a long time so I don’t know”, and further advised that his current contact details were with Novex – Mr. Benyak would have to look up his home phone number in the phone book.
(iii) Ms. Culp: Formerly of Apotex, but no longer employed there.
(iv) Mr. Hems: Merck’s counsel advises that Mr. Hems was (at least formerly) with Apotex; Mr. Benyak testified that he does not know Mr. Hems.
(v) Ms. Knott: A former secretary to Mr. Benyak, who is no longer with him; Mr. Benyak testified that she is “out west”, and he has “no idea where she is.”
Benyak transcript, April 13, 2004 p. 241, Q. 1064; p. 280, Q. 1223; p. 281, Q. 1230-1232; p. 292, Q. 1279; p. 298, Q. 1323
Benyak transcript, April 15, 2004 p. 751, Q. 3248-3252
(e) Brantford Chemicals Inc.
Benyak transcript, April 15, 2004 p. 780, Q. 3399
(f) Trillium Health Care Manufacturing Inc., a supplier which manufactured Nu-Enalapril tablets for Nu-Pharm.
Benyak transcript, April 13, 2004, p. 250, Q. 1106-1107
[36] Finally, Nu-Pharm states that by her erroneous Order, Prothonotary Aronovitch allows Merck to do indirectly what it could do directly. Merck could itself obtain the information it currently seeks to have Nu-Pharm obtain from non-parties by: (i) seeking leave to join one or more parties to the action; (ii) beginning another action, and seeking leave to consolidate it with the within action; (iii) seeking leave to examine a non-party; or (iv) seeking an Order for production from a non-party. Consequently, Nu-Pharm submits that the Prothonotary erred in ruling that Nu-Pharm should be required to make the inquiries of non-parties to the action set out in Schedule “A” attached to the Order of August 9, 2006.
[37] For its part, Merck rejects the notion that Nu-Pharm should not be allowed to make inquiries of its former employees even with respect to their work after they left Nu-Pharm, since their work both for and on behalf of Nu-Pharm while they were employed at Novex Pharm, is particularly relevant to the broad pleadings, which allege that not only the former employees but also the corporations have worked in consort to circumvent the permanent Court injunction and persist in its infringement of the ‘349 Patent.
[38] After having held the impugned Making of Inquires Order to the light of the submissions of Merck and Nu-Pharm, I conclude that Prothonotary Aronovitch was called upon to make a discretionary decision. That decision was not wrong. Prothonotary Aronovitch did not base her assessment on a wrong principle nor did she fall prey to a misapprehension of the facts. In my view, she paid due respect to the facts in issue and was mindful of the close ongoing collaboration between certain of the Novex Pharm employees and their former employer Nu-Pharm, all the while working on behalf of Apotex. That is why I shall dismiss Nu-Pharm’s motion appealing the Making of Inquiries Order dated August 9, 2006.
iii) The Merck Appeal of the Making of Inquiries Order
[39] Merck appeals the Making Inquiries Order because in its view, the Prothonotary erred in law in failing to find that Apotex was Nu-Pharm’s agent when its employees were so acting. Also, Merck argues that the Prothonotary erred in law in failing to order further inquiries pursuant to Rule 244.
[40] In response, Nu-Pharm and Benyak assert that Prothonotary Aronovitch did not err by rejecting the request to order further inquiries pursuant to Rule 244 as the parties in question are non-parties who do not fall within the scope of individuals referred to in Rule 241. Moreover, Prothonotary Aronovitch did not establish that the former employees were agents of Nu-Pharm. She characterized them as follows:
In the particular circumstances of this case, I find as well that van Doornik and Beyger may be said to be akin to agents in respect of their areas of responsibility while at Novex Pharma. […]
[41] The respondents argue that there is a noted distinction between being something and being “akin” to being something. The two are not the same. Consequently, there is no foundation for Merck’s argument that Apotex, as Van Doornik’s, Beyger’s and Culp’s employer, was also an agent for Nu-Pharm.
[42] Finally, Nu-Pharm submits that there is no obligation on a party being examined to make inquiries of a corporate entity that is independent of the party being examined, even in a case where the third party is related to another defendant in the proceeding (see Intel Corp. v. 3395383 Canada Inc., [2004] F.C.J. No. 251 (F.C.) (QL) at paragraph 21).
[43] Similarly, with respect to the production of documents in the possession and control of non parties, the respondent Nu-Pharm asserts that a party being examined is not obliged to obtain documents from a non-party. The party seeking the documents should seek production directly from the non-party, pursuant to Rule 233. Similarly, a party seeking information from a non-party should seek to examine the non-party directly, pursuant to Rule 238. At paragraph 16 in Remo Imports Ltd. v. Jaguar Canada Inc. (2000), 6 C.P.R. (4th) 62 (F.C.T.D.), Justice John O’Keefe affirmed as follows:
16. There is no doubt that the documents requested are relevant as the defendants have pleaded sales of the goods in Canada. Although the discovery rules are to be interpreted broadly, there is a need to apply a specific rule to a certain set of facts if those facts fit the rule. Here we have the dealers, who are non-parties, specifically covered by Rule 233(1). It is my opinion that it is an error of law to order the dealers' documents to be produced by the plaintiff when Rule 233(1) sets out a simple process to obtain the documents of a non-party. I would therefore reverse the prothonotary's decision with respect to paragraph 22 and rule that the defendants need not produce the sales documents of its dealers or retailers.
[44] I have carefully reviewed the arguments of both parties and I turn my attention to the questions of the principle of agency and the examinations for discovery of non-parties.
a) Agency principle
[45] Black’s Law Dictionary defines agency as follows:
A fiduciary relationship created by express or implied contract or by law, in which one party (the agent) may act on behalf of another party (the principal) and bind that other party by words or actions.
[46] Gower and Davies set out the factors Courts take into consideration when determining whether or not a relationship of agency exists. These are as follows:
(i) A principal is bound by the transactions on his behalf of his agents or employees if the latter acted within either:
(a) the actual scope of the authority conferred upon them by their principal prior to the transaction or by subsequent ratification; or
(b) the apparent (or ostensible) scope of their authority.
(ii) A principal, qua employer, may also be vicariously liable in tort for acts of his employees or agents which, though not authorized, are nevertheless within the scope of their employment but, in general, is not criminally liable for their acts.
Gower and Davies, Principles of Modern Company Law, 7th ed. (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2003) at 129
(See also G.H.L. Fridman, Fridman’s Law of Agency, 7th edition, (Toronto: Butterworths, 1996), at 11)
[47] I am cognizant of passages in Prothonotary Aronovitch’s Endorsement where she took particular note of the fact that the Compendium produced by Merck is replete with documents signed by Beyger, for example that indicate as follows:
[…] “Novex Pharma (for Nu-Pharm Inc.)” - with Beyger explicitly holding himself out to represent Nu-Pharm in its regulatory affairs.
The fact that Beyger and van Doornik were providing “services” to Nu-Pharm, pursuant to one or more service agreements, in my view, does not detract from the fact that they were acting for and on behalf of Nu-Pharm in the very spheres of expertise and activity in which they had been formerly employed by Nu-Pharm.
[48] I cannot conclude that she was clearly wrong in that she based her decision upon a wrong principle or upon a misapprehension of the facts. I do agree that she was entitled to come to the conclusion that such pronouncements should be reserved to the Trier of Fact at Trial, where the questions of the true relationship that exists between Nu-Pharm and Apotex, whether the one is the “alter ego” of the other, are to be ultimately decided. I would therefore not interfere with the Prothonotary’s findings in this regard. Indeed, I believe that the pith and substance of that part of her Order, which is being appealed lies in her correct interpretation of the provisions in the Rules for the examination of non-parties.
b) Examination of Non-Parties
[49] I have also carefully reviewed the arguments advanced by Merck and the responses of Nu-Pharm and Benyak and conclude that Merck’s position must fail. As noted by Prothonotary Aronovitch, the Rules make specific provisions for the examination of non-parties and the production of documents from same.
[50] In this regard, Rules 233 and 238 are avenues open to Merck in order to pursue further inquiries including the production of documents from Apotex and its interlocking corporate network. I cannot therefore intervene as Merck would wish, particularly since I agree that Prothonotary Aronovitch was not inexact when she noted as follows:
However, the corporate entities of which Merck would have Benyak inquire, while “third parties” for the purposes of the litigation, are suppliers of services or product of whom it is appropriate, in my view, to make inquiries, solely in respect of documents, “where one can reasonably expect that because of a relationship existing between a party and some third party, that request will be honoured”. Eli Lilly and Co. v. Apotex Inc. [2000 F.C.J. No. 154] Hugessen J. This is subject, of course, to reasonable limits (General Foods Corp. v. Wrigley Canada Inc. (1987), 16 C.P.R. (3d) 575 (F.C.T.D.).
That said, other than answering proper follow-up questions on the basis of Nu-Pharm and Benyak’s own knowledge, information and belief regarding documents or information to be provided as a result of the inquiries ordered to be made, Nu-Pharm will have no further obligation to make inquiries. Anything further will require Merck to move to have documentary or other examination of third parties. It is to be hoped that such proceedings may be obviated by the inquiries to be made and documents produced.
This is aged, complex and hard fought litigation. Nothing moves except by inches. Almost all is contested. It is on that basis that I have directed the parties to seek mediation. The hope and expectation is there will have been sufficient disclosure of relevant material and information made prior to the mediation to give the parties confidence and a basis to settle.
[51] For these reasons, the motion on appeal brought by Merck against parts of the Making Inquiries Orders is dismissed.
iv) The Benyak Appeal of the Making of Inquiries Order
[52] Defendant Benyak relies on Nu-Pharm submissions on its appeal of the Making of Inquiries Order and adds that since he was sued in his personal capacity and since the questions that were ordered to be answered that are at issue on this appeal relate to Nu-Pharm, the corporation, and not to Mr. Benyak in his personal capacity, he should, therefore, not be required to answer them.
[53] Merck also relies on its submission as a respondent on the Nu-Pharm’s appeal and argues that Benyak had a duty to make inquiries prior to his examination for discovery in order to prepare him to answer the questions. That is why Merck points out that despite his apparent absence of any knowledge whatsoever, prior to his examination for discovery, Benyak made no inquiries of his relevant former employees. Similarly, he did not obtain relevant facts and documents from four suppliers of technology, wares and services related to NU-ENALAPRIL; namely, Apotex, Brantford, Signa and Trillium Health Care Manufacturing Inc. (Trillium). Merck submits that Benyak cannot escape his obligations to answer the questions. In both his personal and corporate capacities, Benyak has an obligation to become better informed and provide further answers pursuant to Rule 244.
[54] I agree. Rule 241 is unequivocal: the duty to make inquiries to prepare for an examination for discovery is mandatory. This Rule states that “a person to be examined for discovery, such as Mr. Benyak shall, before the examination, become informed by making inquiries of any present or former officer, servant, agent or employee of the party, who might be expected to have knowledge relating to any matter in question in the action.” Here, the Prothonotary took into consideration the “apparent dearth of knowledge” on the part of Benyak about “matters of central relevance” to the action, ordered him to make inquiries as set out in the Order. I find no error in her decision and therefore, the Benyak motion to appeal parts of the Making of Inquiries Order is dismissed.
B) THE AUGUST REFUSALS ORDER DATED AUGUST 9, 2006
[55] In the second Order, Prothonotary Aronovitch ordered that the questions contained in categories 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the plaintiffs’ categorized charts are relevant and are to be answered, subject to the following three points:
(a) only proper and reasonable questions are to be answered;
(b) in answer Nu-Pharm and Benyak must provide their knowledge, information and belief; to the extent the nature of the inquiries to be made of certain specific persons was defined in the Court’s Order on the Making Inquiries Questions, it is not altered by this Order; and
(c) questions answered under reserve of objection are answered subject only to the provisos that:
(i) they are answered without admitting their relevance or admissibility at trial; and
(ii) the agreement to answer them cannot be used against Nu-Pharm or Benyak in adjudicating any other question;
and thus Nu-Pharm and Benyak will answer the questions set out in Schedule “A” hereto.
[56] Prothonotary Aronovitch also ordered that Nu-Pharm and Benyak shall produce to the plaintiffs any documents agreed or ordered to be produced, as set out in the schedules hereto. Benyak is to re-attend on discovery, in his personal and corporate capacity, to answer questions that arise from the answers and documents produced as a result of this Order. Finally, the Prothonotary ordered that other than answering proper follow-up questions on the basis of Nu-Pharm and Benyak’s own knowledge, information and belief regarding documents or information to be provided as a result of the inquiries ordered to be made, Nu-Pharm will have no further obligation to make inquiries. Anything further will require Merck to move to have documentary or other examination of third parties. It is to be hoped that such proceedings may be obviated by the inquiries to be made and documents produced.
i) Issues
[57] The moving parties raise the following two issues:
a) Did the prothonotary err in principle or misapprehend the facts?
b) Did the prothonotary err by failing to provide an Endorsement of her August Refusals Order? As this issue is also raised in the November Refusals Order, it is addressed further in these reasons under that section.
[58] For the reasons that follow, the response to the first question is negative. Each of the three motions of appeal against the August Refusals Order, dated August 9, 2006 shall therefore be dismissed.
ii) Standard of Review
[59] The appeals of the August Refusals Order are discretionary. As a result, as indicated above, I shall not intervene unless the moving parties can show that the Prothonotary was clearly wrong, or based her decisions on a wrong principle or on a misapprehension of the facts. I adopt the position of the defendant Nu-Pharm in this regard that Prothonotary Aronovitch has case managed this action for seven years and thus has intimate knowledge of the history of the action and the discovery process.
[60] This Court and the Court of Appeal have consistently held that deference is especially owed to discretionary orders that are issued by case management prothonotaries, having regard to their intimate familiarity with the conduct of the proceeding and their powers and duties under Rule 385. In such cases, a judge should interfere “only in the clearest case of a misuse of judicial discretion” (Apotex v. Merck & Co., 2007 FC 250, [2007] F.C.J. No 322 (F.C.) (QL)).
iii) The Nu-Pharm Appeal of the August Refusals Order
[61] Nu-Pharm seeks a variation of the August Refusals Order to the extent that it orders answers to the questions it has set out in Schedule “A” of the Order. Nu-Pharm submits that the August Refusals Order was largely predicated on the Prothonotary’s ruling, without oral submissions and without reasons, that ten categories of refused questions were relevant and not otherwise improper as being a matter of privilege, expert or legal opinion, overbroad, or abusively repetitive.
[62] Nu-Pharm further submits that Prothonotary Aronovitch erred in law by failing to follow the legal principles of discovery, such as the determination that irrelevant and/or overbroad questions are improper. Also, Nu-Pharm states that the Prothonotary erred by requiring Nu-Pharm and Benyak to answer questions that are within the examining party’s means of knowledge. These include questions which ask a party to explain documents that it has already produced or has agreed to produce in advance of producing them, and questions which improperly inquire into matters which are privileged and need not be answered.
[63] Not surprisingly, Merck takes the opposing view. As the parties’ arguments begin to repeat themselves, I shall also repeat myself and underscore that I find nothing clearly wrong in the decision of the Prothonotary with respect to questions ordered to be answered in Schedule “A” of the said Order. Accordingly, the motion on appeal brought by Nu-Pharm against parts of the August Refusal Order is likewise dismissed. It is therefore required to answer the questions set out in the Schedules to the Order.
iv) The Merck Appeal of the August Refusals Order
[64] Merck argues that the Prothonotary erred in law by limiting the follow-up questions that Nu-Pharm and Benyak can answer and thereby requesting that Merck bring a motion under Rule 238 to make further inquiries of the third party. Merck argues that such a procedure anticipates the types of questions that may arise and can lead to a two-tiered system of motions in what are already complex and unwieldy legal proceedings. This, Merck argues is contrary to the goals of judicial economy and efficiency set out in the Rules (Rule 3). Finally, Merck submits that the Prothonotary erred by improperly shrouding the questions that can be answered and the documents to be produced in the cloak of solicitor/client privilege. Such an Order is misplaced at this late stage of the discovery process.
[65] Merck points out that the defendants’ conduct as alleged in its Statement of Claim is so brazen and egregious a breach of Orders of this Court that the integrity of the Court’s process is negatively affected if it passes without condemnation. In addition, the public interest in the administration of justice, require that evidence relevant to the scheme not be allowed to be concealed behind the very business and corporate structures that are part and parcel of the scheme.
[66] For its part, Nu-Pharm, contests the position adopted by Merck and comes to the aid of Prothonotary Aronovitch who has case managed the matter, heard and rendered innumerable Orders over the course of the seven years since the Statement of Claim was first filed. In addition, Nu-Pharm argues that with respect to the questions of privilege that the Prothonotary has inserted as a proviso to the expected answers to questions and production of documents, is a highly acceptable procedural practice being exercised with the discretion of a conscientious, experienced Prothonotary. Nu-Pharm is also of the view that the Prothonotary’s rulings with respect to claims of solicitor/client privilege were consistent with the jurisprudence and are, in any event, matters which fall entirely within her discretion. Nu-Pharm argues that as such, this Court should dismiss Merck’s motion of appeal against the August Refusals Order.
[67] I have carefully weighed in the balance the able arguments on both sides. I am not unmoved by the concerns of judicial economy and efficiency in the procedures of discovery and fairness advanced by Counsel for Merck. I am persuaded however by the representations of Counsel for Nu-Pharm not only with respect to the expertise of Prothonotary Aronovitch in the Rules of the Federal Courts but also with her intimate knowledge of the case from its very beginnings. She has demonstrated sensitivity, patience and resolve to safeguard the general principle in her interpretation of the Rules of the Court, which as notes Rule 3 are
[. . .] applied so as to secure the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of every proceeding on its merits.
[68] As such, I arrive at the same conclusions as my colleague, Justice Richard Mosley in Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co., above (see paragraph 60 of these reasons), who said at paragraph 31 of his decision:
31. I find no reason to conclude that the learned prothonotary's Order was clearly wrong, in the sense that the exercise of discretion by the prothonotary was based upon a wrong principle or upon a misapprehension of the facts. […]
[69] It is also appropriate at this stage to cite Justice John M. Evans in Sawridge Band v. Canada, 2006 FCA 228, [2006] F.C.J. No. 956 (F.C.A.) (QL) at paragraphs 21, 22 and 23:
21 First, this Court is very reluctant to interfere with decisions made by a judge in the course of managing a matter prior to trial, particularly one as complex, lengthy and difficult as this one. As a result of living with the matter over time, the case management judge will have acquired an overall understanding of it which an appellate court, on the basis of hearing an appeal on a particular issue, cannot possibly match in either depth or breadth.
22 When performing essentially case management functions judges are appropriately given "elbow room" by appellate courts, so that they can get on with what is often a difficult job, calling for a mix of patience, flexibility, firmness, ingenuity, and an overall sense of fairness to all parties. These qualities are very evident in the way in which both Hugessen and Russell JJ. have performed their tasks in the present matter.
23 In my opinion, the Court should bear the above considerations in mind when both determining and applying the standards of review appropriate to the different aspects of Russell J.'s decision by virtue of Housen v. Nikolaisen, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235, 2002 SCC 33.
[70] Accordingly, this appeal by motion of Merck to set aside the August 9, 2006 Refusals Order will be dismissed.
v) The Benyak Appeal of the August Refusals Order
[71] Counsel for Benyak adopts and relies on Nu-Pharm’s submissions on the above-mentioned motion on appeal of the August Refusals Order.
[72] Merck submits that because of the lack of preparation and dearth of knowledge demonstrated by Mr. Benyak, it has spent three years attempting to obtain proper production from the Defendants. At discoveries, Benyak, in his personal capacity and as the corporate representative for Nu-Pharm, refused or took under advisement more than 1,500 questions including many that concerned documents which clearly fell within the Production Order. Nu-Pharm only produced two internal documents until it was compelled to produce additional documents by Order of Prothonotary Aronovitch dated June 24, 2002 (the Production Order). To this date, the Affidavit of Documents of Nu-Pharm does not contain all the documents ordered to be produced pursuant to the Production Order.
[73] Benyak has been a senior officer (usually president) and a director of Nu-Pharm since it was incorporated in 1989. He has also been a shareholder of the company. Nevertheless, on discovery he professed to have little or no knowledge, information or belief on numerous important topics, including: preparation of his company’s regulatory filings concerning NU-ENALAPRIL; the background behind all the Apotex documents contained in the filings; the Notices of Allegation and litigation relating to the filings; the alleged 1999 agreements pursuant to which Nu-Pharm allegedly received sodium enalapril technology in exchange for $5,0000,000; the identity of the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) in NU-ENALAPRIL; and the technology package that Nu-Pharm gave to its tablet manufacturer to allow it to make NU-ENALAPRIL tablets.
[74] Similarly, submits Merck, Benyak was unable to provide information about the negotiation or execution of four key 1998 agreements, the circumstances which led Nu-Pharm to enter into them, or the consideration which flowed under them. Benyak’s evidence was that, as president and CEO of Nu-Pharm, he simply signed documents which were put in front of him. One agreement disposed of most of Nu-Pharm’s assets. The other three locked Nu-Pharm’s business under Apotex’ control. Finally, Benyak was unable to provide information concerning the details of the 1998 sale of Nu-Pharm’s shares by its parent, Apotex Pharmaceutical Holdings Inc. (APHI), to 1314138 Ontario Ltd, (whose officer and director is J. Ulster, a long time friend of Dr. Sherman), or the extent to which he benefited from the sale of NU-ENALAPRIL. For example, he indicated that:
(a) he did not know Ulster, despite the fact that he is director of 1314138 Ontario Ltd which purchased the shares of Nu-Pharm;
(b) he was unaware of the reason for the direction of $12.75 million dollars from Nu-Pharm to APHI following the sale of the Nu-Pharm shares and;
(c) he refused to provide an explanation for the vast increase in value of his Nu-Pharm shares between 1998 and 2001.
[75] I am of the view that Merck is correct. As President of Nu-Pharm, Mr. Benyak has a duty to be informed and his refusal to respond to the questions set out in the Prothonotary’s August Refusals Order is an avowal of a dereliction of his duties. Moreover, it is not enough for Mr. Benyak to also say that the questions pertain to Nu-Pharm and he is therefore absolved of all responsibilities in both his corporate and personal capacities. As President of Nu-Pharm, he is the senior managing officer, he is not an underling but rather a director who can be considered to be a directing mind of Nu-Pharm. Personal liability applies not to lower level employees but to directors, to people such as the President, who are the directing mind and will of a company. As in his corporate capacity, Mr. Benyak is not immune in his personal capacity and has a duty to not only inform himself but also to respond to the questions as ordered by the Prothonotary.
[76] For these reasons, the Benyak Appeal of parts of the August Refusals Order is dismissed.
C) THE NOVEMBER REFUSALS ORDER DATED NOVEMBER 24, 2006
[77] In the November Refusals Order, Prothonotary Aronovitch ordered among other things that Nu-Pharm and Benyak respond to the questions pursuant to Rule 241 contained in Schedule “A” to the Order of November 24, 2006 and ordered costs to Merck.
i) Issues
[78] The parties raise the following issues with respect to the November Refusals Order:
a) Did the Prothonotary err by providing minimal reasons such as an Endorsement in her August and November Refusals Orders?
b) Did the Prothonotary base her Order on a misapprehension of the facts with respect to the questions ordered answered in Schedule “A”?
c) Did the Prothonotary err in awarding costs to Merck at the high end of Column V of Tariff B in the November Refusals Order?
[79] For the reasons that follow, the response to each of these questions is negative. Consequently the three motions of appeals of the Order of Prothonotary Aronovitch dated November 24, 2006 will be dismissed.
ii) Standard of Review
[80] The Prothonotary’s decision with respect to the interpretation of the Rules is reviewable on the correctness standard. Where however it concerns the discretionary decisions not to provide an Endorsement (explanation) or to award costs, the standard of review remains that of the clearly wrong standard.
iii) The Nu-Pharm Appeal of the November Refusals Order
[81] Nu-Pharm seeks an Order varying the November Refusals Order to the extent that it orders answers to the questions as set out in Schedule “A” of the Order, which are based on a misapprehension of the facts. Nu-Pharm submits that, in the November Refusals Order, the Prothonotary erred in law in failing to apply the general legal principles that govern the conduct of examinations for discovery.
[82] Notably, Nu-Pharm is critical of the ruling in that it believes that questions that have already been answered need not be answered again, and as such Schedule “A of the Order is replete with repetitive questions. Also questions relating to other litigation need not be answered in light of the implied undertaking rule, particularly where such other litigation is subject to a confidentiality order. Nu-Pharm states that many of the rulings in the November Refusals Order required Nu-Pharm to provide information relating to other legal proceedings, which are either a matter of public record, or are subject to the implied undertaking rule. Relying on the decision N.M. Paterson & Sons Ltd. v. St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corp., 2002 FCT 1247, (2002), 225 F.T.R. 308 (F.C.T.D.), affirmed 2004 FCA 210, Nu-Pharm states that the implied undertaking rule establishes that documents and information produced as part of the Court process are confidential to the producing party, unless given in open court. Merck ought to have applied to the Court prior to the proceedings for relief from its obligation of confidentiality imposed by the implied undertaking rule to have access to documents it now seeks from Nu-Pharm, some of which are subject to solicitor/client privilege.
[83] Nu-Pharm highlights that Merck was party to the legal proceedings in which many of the questions in Schedule “A” find their roots. Therefore, where the information it seeks in relation to these other proceedings is not already in the public record, Merck is perfectly capable of obtaining this information on its own and without the assistance of Nu-Pharm.
a) Absence of Endorsements
[84] Much like Merck, Nu-Pharm has expressed more than a passing concern for the fact that both the August and the November Refusals Orders are not accompanied by an endorsement or any explanation for the Prothonotary’s reasons. The parties note that both Refusals Order were largely predicated on the Prothonotary’s ruling, without having had the benefit of full oral submissions and without providing any reasons, that ten categories of refused questions were relevant and not otherwise improper.
[85] With respect to the absence of an endorsement in either Refusals Order, I rely again on Apotex v. Merck & Co., above (see paragraph 60 of these reasons), at paragraph 13 of Justice Mosley’s decision:
The lack of reasons alone will not automatically give rise to a hearing de novo on an appeal from a prothonotary's decision before a judge of this Court. This was the conclusion Justice François Lemieux reached in Anchor Brewing Co. v. Sleeman Brewing & Malting Co., 2001 FCT 1066, 15 C.P.R. (4th) 63 at para. 31 having reviewed the existing precedents. Justice Lemieux noted further at paragraph 32 of his reasons that:
De novo intervention is not justified when, examining all of the circumstances, including the nature of the order made, the evidence before the prothonotary, whether the exercise of discretion involves essentially a consideration of legal principles, reasonably demonstrate the manner in which the prothonotary exercised his/her discretion.
[emphasis in the original]
[86] The absence of endorsement does not cause prejudice to the parties. The Court is of the opinion that endorsement is not required in orders such as those contested here.
b) Cost Awards
[87] Nu-Pharm objects to the Prothonotary’s costs award to Merck at the high end of Column V of Tariff B in the November Refusals Order, which is at variance with the Order made during the hearing. Also, Nu-Pharm submits that the Prothonotary erred in law by making a punitive award of costs and disbursements, in the circumstances of this case, and in the absence of submissions from the plaintiff in support of an award of punitive costs. The Prothonotary erred in law by refusing to consider submissions on the costs of the entire portion of the motion that has been argued to date, to allow proper consideration of the relative success of the parties in the motion thus far, despite the request of counsel for Nu-Pharm.
[88] Counsel for Merck submits that the award of costs is discretionary and cannot be reviewed de novo. It can only be disturbed by a motions judge on appeal if it is based on a wrong principle or upon a misapprehension of the facts. The award of costs was not clearly wrong argues Merck (see First Canadians' Constitution Draft Committee The United Korean Government (Canada) v. Canada, 2004 FCA 93, 238 D.L.R. (4th) 306 at 308 (F.C.A.)).
[89] As Merck underscores, Rule 400(1), establishes that costs are in the discretion of the Court. In determining the scale of costs to be awarded, Rule 400(3) sets out a number of factors the Court may consider in the exercise of its discretion under Rule 400(1). The relevant factors to consider include, inter alia, the result of the proceeding, any conduct of a party that tended to unnecessarily lengthen the duration of the proceedings and whether any step in the proceeding was unnecessary or taken through excessive caution. Where a step in the proceeding is unnecessary or a party’s conduct unnecessarily lengthens the duration of a proceeding, the Court may fix increased costs on an interim basis (see Apotex Inc. v. Syntex Pharmaceuticals International Ltd. (1999), 2 C.P.R. (4th) 368 (F.C.T.D.) at paras. 2-4, varied but not on that point (2001), 12 C.P.R. (4th) 413 (F.C.A.)).
[90] Contrary to the Defendants’ assertion, Merck rebuts that there is no evidence that the Learned Prothonotary’s costs award was punitive. The Prothonotary’s stated reasons for awarding costs to Merck at the high end of Column V of Tariff B, included the fact that Nu-Pharm persisted in maintaining its objections, despite the obvious relevance of hundreds of questions. It can also be inferred that she took into account Merck’s additional submissions which included:
(a) Merck’s relative success on the motion; and
(b) Nu-Pharm’s intransigence that unreasonably lengthened the hearing of this motion, protracted the discovery process and delayed the proceeding.
[91] Merck submits that absent any evidence that the Learned Prothonotary’s costs award was clearly wrong, there is no basis for this Court to intervene.
[92] Having considered the arguments of the parties on the awarding of costs, I agree that the Prothonotary’s award of costs is a discretionary power, which as counsel for Merck so rightly points out, ought not to be disturbed unless it can be demonstrated that it was clearly wrong. No such conclusion can be drawn here. I see also no value to the argument put forward by Nu-Pharm that the Prothonotary said at the hearing that costs should be against Apotex. The order clearly shows that costs are payable by Nu-Pharm and Benyak.
[93] Therefore, the appeal by Nu-Pharm against the November Refusals Order is dismissed.
iv) The Merck Appeal of the November Refusals Order
[94] Merck submits that the Prothonotary erred in limiting the obligations of Nu-Pharm and Benyak and also by standing down additional questions submitted in Schedule “E”, until the responses of the earlier questions and that without providing an endorsement or explanation for this ruling, as was done in the August Refusals Order. Merck seeks an Order reversing in particular subsection 1(d) of the November Refusals Order, which states as follows:
(d) At this time Nu-Pharm and Benyak need make no inquiries of, nor any requests for documents from, Beyger, Culp, Van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium, or Saban beyond any previously ordered on this motion and any previously undertaken to be made; the questions listed in Schedule “E” hereto, to the extent they involve inquiries of such persons, will be stood down and not dealt with by the parties or the Court until the results of the inquiries and requests previously ordered are known.
[95] Nu-Pharm and Benyak submit that the Prothonotary appropriately exercised her discretion to place reasonable limits on the vast number of questions that Merck seeks to have Nu-Pharm and Benyak ask of non-parties. Further, the Prothonotary did not err in ordering the Defendants did not have to answer the 17 additional questions Merck now seeks to have answered, all of which are irrelevant and/or otherwise improper. Moreover, by making submissions of the alleged scheme to circumvent the permanent injunction, Nu-Pharm opposes Merck’s attempt to use this theory of its case to broaden the scope of the discovery to non-parties, in a manner that is impermissible in the Rules. For these reasons, Nu-Pharm and Benyak submit that Merck’s motion is without merit and, therefore, ought to be dismissed with costs.
[96] I do not find that the Prothonotary’s ruling in this regard is clearly wrong. In light of the number of questions and the insistence of Merck to pursue examinations for discovery of non-parties via Rules 241 and 244 rather than by Rules 233 and 238, which are specifically intended for just such examinations of non parties, the Prothonotary has sought to apply the Rules to secure the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of each question on its merits. It is purely common sense, I would rather think, for the Prothonotary to rule that Merck should wait to see the nature and calibre of the fruits of the initial examinations, before putting forward multiple other questions that may prove to be redundant. This is not clearly wrong. I see no reason to interfere with such economy of proceeding.
[97] For these reasons, the motion by Merck to vary the November Refusals Order is dismissed.
v) The Benyak Appeal of the November Refusals Order
[98] Benyak has adopted and relied on the submissions of the Nu-Pharm motion of appeal of the November Refusals Order. For the reasons provided above in Nu-Pharm’s appeal of the November refusals order, the present Benyak appeal is also dismissed.
D) THE SHERMAN ORDER DATED AUGUST 9, 2006
[99] Prothonotary Aronovitch ordered that the defendant Sherman does not have an obligation to make further inquiries in answer to questions asked concerning those corporations controlled by him including (but not limited to) Apotex Inc., Apotex Pharmaceutical Holdings Inc., Apotex Holdings Inc., Brantford Chemicals Inc., Apotex Research Inc., the “Apotex Group of Companies,” and their officers, directors and employees thereof, or concerning third party corporations including Signa S.A. de C.V. and Trillium Health Care Manufacturing Inc.
i) Issue
[100] The Sherman Order raises the single issue whether the Prothonotary erred by finding that Sherman has no obligation to better inform himself by making further inquiries to non parties to the action.
[101] For the reasons that follow, the answer to that question is negative. Consequently, the Plaintiffs’ Motion of appeal of this part of the Order of Prothonotary Aronovitch dated August 9, 2006 shall be dismissed.
ii) Standard of Review
[102] If the Prothonotary’s decision raises a question of law then it is reviewable on a standard of correctness (see Housen v. Nikolaisen, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235 at para. 8; and Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd., [1993] 2 F.C. 425). If it is a discretionary order, it is reviewable on the clearly wrong standard.
iii) The Merck Appeal of the Sherman Order
[103] Merck, the moving party on this motion of appeal, argues that Prothonotary Aronovitch erred in law by failing to order certain inquiries pursuant to Rule 244. Notably, in interpreting the meaning of the current Rule 244, the Prothonotary compared Rule 465 in the pre 1990 Rules to Rule 458 in the 1990 Rules. The Prothonotary concluded that the removal of the words “means of knowledge” in Rule 458 (now Rule 240) meant that there was no basis to extend the obligation to make inquiries under Rule 244 beyond those entities set out in Rule 241. Appearing in his personal capacity, Sherman was thus not required to make inquiries of the persons stipulated in Rule 241:
[...] any present or former officer, servant, agent or employee of the party, including any who are outside Canada, who might be expected to have knowledge relating to any matter in question in the action |
[…] des dirigeants, fonctionnaires, agents ou employés actuels ou antérieurs de la partie, y compris ceux qui se trouvent à l’extérieur du Canada, dont il est raisonnable de croire qu’ils pourraient détenir des renseignements au sujet de toute question en litige dans l’action. |
[104] In so doing, Merck submits the Prothonotary failed to apply a purposive and contextual approach to her interpretation of the Rules, as is encouraged in section 12 of the Interpretation Act. Also, the Prothonotary failed to consider the amendments made between the 1990 Rules and 1998 Rules, and fell into legal error. Finally, the Prothonotary erred when she based her reasoning on two outdated cases: Leesona Corp. v. Snia Viscosa Canada Ltd. (1975), 26 C.P.R. (2d) 136 (F.C.T.D.) and Risi Stone Ltd. v. Groupe Permacon Inc. (1994), 56 C.P.R. (3d) 381 (F.C.T.D.). Both cases have long since been overtaken by legislative will. Moreover, neither case supports the narrow interpretation, which Prothonotary Aronovitch placed on Rule 244.
[105] Merck adds that neither case was decided under the current Rules or addressed Rule 244 or its predecessor. Leesona was decided in 1975 under the pre-1990 Rules. It does stand for the proposition that the old Rules were broader than the new Rules. Moreover, the “general rule” referred to by Justice Walsh and cited by the Prothonotary, referred to a discovery witness submitted on behalf of a corporation. It has no application to Dr. Sherman’s discovery. Similarly, the Risi Stone decision was made under the 1990 Rules. Justice Marc Nadon’s comments were made in the context of questions seeking an interpretation of a patent or the expression of an opinion. The comments cannot be construed as general statements concerning the scope of Rule 458, much less the scope of current Rule 244.
[106] Counsel for the respondent, Dr. Sherman argues that it is not the Prothonotary but rather the Appellant, Merck who has misconstrued the legislative intent of Rule 244. Merck seeks to have the Court overlook the fact that Dr. Sherman is sued in his personal capacity and as such he is not a corporate representative upon whom it is incumbent to make further inquiries of non-parties such as Apotex. In essence, Merck asks the Court to do what it has failed to do and that is to avail itself of the provisions of Rule 238 that clearly sets out the option for examinations of non-parties with leave of the Court.
[107] Moreover, the case of Hayden Manufacturing Co. v. Canplas Industries Ltd. (August 20, 1998) T-873-93 (F.C.T.D.) was not before Prothonotary Aronovitch. Counsel for Sherman provides a survey of the cases relied on by Merck and systematically distinguishes each from the particular situation of her client, demonstrating their inapplicability to the case.
[108] She submits that the Court should not engage in the interpretation of Rule 244 because the Prothonotary did not say that Rule 244 is limited to 241. Prothonotary Aronovitch analyzed the case law cited by Merck and exercised her discretion properly in not forcing Sherman to seek unlimited inquiries out of corporations that are not parties to the present action.
[109] She adds that the history of Apotex involvement was before the Prothonotary and she dealt with that. Deference should be given to the analysis in her Endorsement.
[110] Having carefully reviewed the Endorsement in the Order of Prothonotary Aronovitch and assessed the arguments of the parties, I agree with the respondent's arguments that I need not engage in the interpretation of Rule 244 interesting as it may be, to dispose of this appeal.
[111] Prothonotary Aronovitch wrote in her penultimate paragraph of her Endorsement:
As to Rule 244, it is not as Merck suggests unlimited or unconstrained in the obligation it imposes. Rather, it is to be read and understood in the context of Rules 240 and 241.
The Court must be mindful of what was written before those lines. In other words, the context is very important here.
[112] Prothonotary Aronovitch considered that Dr. Sherman was sued as a personal defendant and not as a corporate representative. She dealt with the notion of formal agency between the corporations and Dr. Sherman. She analyzed Merck's submissions that Dr. Sherman is an "alter ego" of Apotex and companies related to Apotex and that the "corporate veil" should be lifted. She commented and distinguished the case law cited by Merck and finally concluded "… Merck, in my view, as placed the proverbial cart before the horse".
[113] In my respectful view, Prothonotary Aronovitch was exercising her discretion in the evaluation of the evidence adduced before her when she released her order. I find no basis to intervene because she is not clearly wrong and her findings are not based on a misapprehension of facts.
[114] Therefore, Merck's appeal of the Sherman Order shall be dismissed.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that:
1. Nu-Pharm’s motion dated October 10, 2006 is dismissed, costs in the cause;
2. Merck's motion dated October 12, 2006 is dismissed, costs in the cause;
3. Benyak motion dated October 12, 2006 is dismissed, costs in the cause;
4. Merck's motion dated December 4, 2006 is dismissed, costs in the cause;
5. Nu-Pharm’s motion dated December 4, 2006 is dismissed, costs in the cause;
6. Benyak motion dated December 4, 2006 is dismissed, costs in the cause;
7. Merck's motion dated October 13, 2006 is dismissed, costs in the cause.
APPENDIX “I”
Date: 20060809
Court File No.: T-753-99
Ottawa, Ontario, August 9, 2006
PRESENT: Madam Prothonotary Roza Aronovitch
B E T W E E N:
MERCK & CO., INC. and MERCK FROSST CANADA & CO.
Plaintiffs
- and -
NU-PHARM INC., BERNARD SHERMAN
and RICHARD BENYAK
Defendants
ORDER
(Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Richard Benyak and Nu-Pharm Inc. to Answer
Questions Concerning Making Inquiries)
UPON motion by the
plaintiffs for:
1. An order compelling the defendants Nu-Pharm Inc. (“Nu-Pharm”) and Richard Benyak (“Benyak”) to answer the undertakings given on the examination for discovery of Benyak, in his corporate and individual capacity, held on April 6, 13, 14, 15 and 16, June 11, August, 24, 25, and 26, 2004 and March 4, 2005;
2. An order compelling Nu-Pharm and Benyak to answer discovery questions refused on the examination for discovery of Benyak, in his personal and corporate capacity, held on April 6, 13, 14, 15 and 16, June 11, August 24, 25 and 26, 2004 and March 4, 2005;
3. An order compelling Nu-Pharm and Benyak to answer discovery questions asked by way of written interrogatory;
4. An order compelling Nu-Pharm and Benyak to re-attend on discovery to answer further questions, including questions arising out of the answers provided and documents produced in respect of paragraph’s 1-3 above;
5. An order granting the plaintiffs’ their costs of this motion; and
6.
Such further and other relief as counsel may
advise and this Honourable Court deem just;
AND UPON this Court directing that a subset of the questions listed in the plaintiffs’ categorized charts at Tab 30 of the Moving Parties' Motion Record be dealt with first, said subset being set out in Schedules “A”, “B” and “C” attached hereto (the “Making Inquiries Questions”);
AND UPON the parties having informed the Court that they had resolved certain of the Making Inquiries Questions as indicated in Schedule "C" hereto;
AND UPON the Court having informed the parties of its decision as set out in paragraph 1 below and then directed the parties to attempt to resolve the remaining unresolved Making Inquiries Questions, subject to appeal of the paragraph 1 decision;
AND UPON the parties having informed the Court thereafter that, given the Court's direction and paragraph 1 below, they had reached an agreement resolving the remaining Making Inquiries Questions as indicated in Schedule "B" hereto, which agreement includes the terms that such agreement is without prejudice to any party’s right to appeal and that if any of the principles set out in paragraph 1 below is finally overturned after appeal, then the agreement with respect to any Schedule "B" questions affected by the successful appeal will be amended to correspond therewith;
AND UPON reviewing the Moving Parties’ Motion Record and the responding motion record of Benyak and Nu-Pharm, and hearing the submissions of their counsel on April 11 and June 5 and 6, 2006 on the Making Inquiries Questions:
ENDORSEMENT
The background facts in respect of Anthony van Doornik (“van Doornik”), Joseph Beyger (“Beyger”) and Dawn Culp (“Culp”) are set out in Merck’s Compendium labeled “Inquiries of Former Employees”. These are former employees of Nu-Pharm. van Doornik and Beyger later moved to Novex Pharma, a division of Apotex Inc. While at Novex Pharma they provided services to Nu-Pharm in respect of Nu-Pharm’s regulatory work.
Manufacturing and regulatory affairs appear to have been the preserves of Beyger and van Doornik, while at Nu-Pharm and later at Novex Pharma, on behalf of Nu-Pharm.
There is no doubt that these three former employees have knowledge of matters in question. In the circumstances, they came within the scope of “present or former officer, servant, agent or employee of the party” of whom the individual being examined for discovery on behalf of Nu-Pharm ought to make inquiries.
In the particular circumstances of this case, I find as well that van Doornik and Beyger may be said to be akin to agents in respect of their areas of responsibility while at Novex Pharma. The Compendium produced by Merck is replete with documents signed by Beyger, for example, as follows: “Novex Pharma (for Nu-Pharm Inc.)” - with Beyger explicitly holding himself out to represent Nu-Pharm in its regulatory affairs.
The fact that Beyger and van Doornik were providing “services” to Nu-Pharm, pursuant to one or more service agreements, in my view, does not detract from the fact that they were acting for and on behalf of Nu-Pharm in the very spheres of expertise and activity in which they had been formerly employed by Nu-Pharm.
There are further factors arising from the particular circumstances of this case that I have taken into consideration - the apparent derth of knowledge, information and documentation on the part of Benyak and Nu-Pharm regarding matters of central relevance in this action, as well the number of instances where Benyak on behalf of Nu-Pharm, has already, quite properly in my view, undertaken to make inquiries.
The combination of factors in the circumstances are such that I have no hesitation in finding a duty on the part of Nu-Pharm and Benyak to make inquiries of van Doornik, Beyger and Culp.
Note that I do not conclude that there is a relationship of formal agency, or “alter ego”, as between Nu-Pharm and the corporate entities suggested by Merck – including Apotex. Those alleged relationships will have to be proven at trial. For the same reason I cannot draw the inference urged on me by Merck that Nu-Pharm is a sham corporation.
However, the corporate entities of which Merck would have Benyak inquire, while “third parties” for the purposes of the litigation, are suppliers of services or product of whom it is appropriate, in my view, to make inquiries, solely in respect of documents, “where one can reasonably expect that because of a relationship existing between a party and some third party, that request will be honoured”. Eli Lilly and Co. v. Apotex Inc. [2000 F.C.J. No. 154] Hugessen J. This is subject, of course, to reasonable limits (General Foods Corp. v. Wrigley Canada Inc. (1987), 16 C.P.R. (3d) 575 (F.C.T.D.).
That said, other than answering proper follow-up questions on the basis of Nu-Pharm and Benyak’s own knowledge, information and belief regarding documents or information to be provided as a result of the inquiries ordered to be made, Nu-Pharm will have no further obligation to make inquiries. Anything further will require Merck to move to have documentary or other examination of third parties. It is to be hoped that such proceedings may be obviated by the inquiries to be made and documents produced.
This is aged, complex and hard fought litigation. Nothing moves except by inches. Almost all is contested. It is on that basis that I have directed the parties to seek mediation. The hope and expectation is there will have been sufficient disclosure of relevant material and information made prior to the mediation to give the parties confidence and a basis to settle.
THIS COURT ORDERS that:
1. For the reasons set out in the Endorsement of the Court, Nu-Pharm and Benyak:
(a) will make inquiries of Joseph Beyger, Antony van Doornik and Dawn Culp;
(b) will request of each of Apotex Inc. (including its Novex Pharma division), Brantford, Signa and Trillium that they produce to Nu-Pharm and Benyak relevant documents, whereby said requests are subject to reasonable limits, but Nu-Pharm and Benyak need not otherwise make inquiries of them;
and thus will answer the questions set out in Schedule “A” hereto.
2. With respect to the inquiries and requests to be made by Nu-Pharm and Benyak pursuant to paragraph 1 above:
(a) they shall be in writing;
(b) they shall be made with 60 days of the date of this Order;
(c) they shall be meaningful, include the details of the matters that have been ordered to be inquired about or requested, and describe specifically the inquiry or request that has been ordered to be made; and
(d) Subject to any appeal and any motion therein to stay this subparagraph, Nu-Pharm and Benyak shall inform the plaintiffs of any response to any of the inquiries or requests within 30 days of receiving said response.
3. Benyak is to re-attend on discovery, in his personal and corporate capacity, to answer questions that arise from the answers and documents produced as a result of this Order and the resolution and agreement referred to herein; the date by which Benyak shall re-attend will be dealt with in a separate Order.
4. That portion of the plaintiffs’ motion dealing with questions other than the Making Inquiries Questions, and the costs of the entire motion, will be dealt with in a separate Order.
“R. Aronovitch”
Prothonotary
SCHEDULE ‘A’
|
Request No |
Date of Discovery |
Page |
Question
|
|
|
2 |
181 |
04/13/2004 |
0298 – 0299 |
1324 |
1 (b) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
4 |
184 |
04/13/2004 |
0299 – 0300 |
1328 – 1329 |
1 (b) |
Ordered answered |
5 |
185 |
04/13/2004 |
300 |
1330 |
1 (b) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
6 |
186 |
04/13/2004 |
300 |
1331 |
1 (b) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
7 |
191 |
04/13/2004 |
0302 – 0303 |
1345 |
1 (b) |
Ordered answered |
8 |
576 |
04/14/2004 |
0560 – 0561 |
2373 – 2376 |
1 (b) |
Ordered answered |
9 |
577 |
04/14/2004 |
0561 – 0562 |
2381 |
1 (b) |
Ordered answered |
10 |
578 |
04/14/2004 |
0562 – 0563 |
2382, 2386 |
1 (b) |
Ordered answered |
11 |
633 |
04/14/2004 |
0603 – 0604 |
2568 – 2570 |
1 (b) |
Ordered answered |
12 |
634 |
04/14/2004 |
604 |
2571 |
1 (b) |
Ordered answered |
13 |
637 |
04/14/2004 |
0610 – 0611 |
2603 – 2605 |
1 (b) |
Ordered answered |
15 |
888 |
04/15/2004 |
797 |
3469 – 3473 |
1 (b) |
Ordered answered |
18 |
922 |
04/15/2004 |
825 |
3595 |
1 (b) |
Ordered answered |
21 |
252 |
04/13/2004 |
370 |
1627 |
1 (c) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
22 |
253 |
04/13/2004 |
371 |
1628 – 1631 |
1 (c) |
Ordered answered |
23 |
254 |
04/13/2004 |
0372 - 0373 |
1636 |
1 (c) |
Ordered answered |
24 |
255 |
04/13/2004 |
373 |
1639 |
1 (c) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
25 |
256 |
04/13/2004 |
373 |
1640 – 1641 |
1 (c) |
Ordered answered with respect to Joseph Beyger, Anthony van Doornik and Dawn Culp, not Apotex |
26 |
257 |
04/13/2004 |
0374 - 0375 |
1645 – 1646 |
1 (c) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
27 |
263 |
04/13/2004 |
379 |
1668 |
1 (c) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
28 |
266 |
04/13/2004 |
0380 - 0381 |
1676 – 1677 |
1 (c) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
29 |
267 |
04/13/2004 |
0381 - 0382 |
1678 – 1682 |
1 (c) |
Ordered answered with respect to reports and tests |
32 |
311 |
04/13/2004 |
413 |
1793 |
1 (c) |
Ordered answered with respect to Joseph Beyger, Anthony van Doornik and Dawn Culp, but not Hems |
33 |
313 |
04/13/2004 |
415 |
1799 – 1802 |
1 (c) |
Ordered answered with respect to Joseph Beyger, Anthony van Doornik and Dawn Culp, but not Hems |
37 |
463 |
04/14/2004 |
518 |
2191 – 2193 |
1 (c) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
38 |
464 |
04/14/2004 |
518 |
2192 – 2193 |
1 (c) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
39 |
465 |
04/14/2004 |
518 |
2194 |
1 (c) |
Ordered answered |
40 |
466 |
04/14/2004 |
518 |
2194 |
1 (c) |
Ordered answered |
42 |
539 |
04/14/2004 |
0541, |
2302, 2306 |
1 (c) |
Ordered answered |
43 |
540 |
04/14/2004 |
0541 - 0542 |
2303, 2306 |
1 (c) |
Ordered answered |
44 |
541 |
04/14/2004 |
0541 - 0542 |
2304, 2306 |
1 (c) |
Ordered answered |
45 |
542 |
04/14/2004 |
0541 - 0542 |
2305, 2306 |
1 (c) |
Ordered answered |
50 |
547 |
04/14/2004 |
547 |
2313 |
1 (c) |
Ordered answered |
58 |
908 |
04/15/2004 |
809 |
3536 |
1 (c) |
Ordered answered with respect to Nu-Pharm |
59 |
909 |
04/15/2004 |
809 |
3537 |
1 (c) |
Ordered answered |
60 |
910 |
04/15/2004 |
809 |
3538 |
1 (c) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
61 |
911 |
04/15/2004 |
809 |
3539 |
1 (c) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
62 |
917 |
04/15/2004 |
823 |
3587, 3589 |
1 (c) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
63 |
918 |
04/15/2004 |
823 |
3588 – 3589 |
1 (c) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
64 |
919 |
04/15/2004 |
823 |
3590 |
1 (c) |
Ordered answered |
66 |
1785 |
08/25/2004 |
1503 |
6052 |
1 (c) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
67 |
1786 |
08/25/2004 |
1505 - 1506 |
6056 |
1 (c) |
Ordered answered |
68 |
1787 |
08/25/2004 |
1508 |
6059 – 6060 |
1 (c) |
Ordered answered |
69 |
1788 |
08/25/2004 |
1509 |
6062 |
1 (c) |
Ordered answered |
74 |
370 |
04/14/2004 |
0475 – 0476 |
2022, 2023 |
2 (a) |
Ordered answered |
75 |
371 |
04/14/2004 |
0475 – 0476 |
2022, 2023 |
2 (a) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
78 |
376 |
04/14/2004 |
478 |
2028 |
2 (a) |
Ordered answered |
81 |
414 |
04/14/2004 |
0496 - 0498 |
2101 – 2106 |
2 (a) |
Ordered answered with respect to Tom Molnar, but not Trillium |
82 |
415 |
04/14/2004 |
0496 - 0498 |
2102 – 2106 |
2 (a) |
Ordered answered with respect to Tom Molnar, but not Trillium |
83 |
416 |
04/14/2004 |
0496 - 0498 |
2104, 2105 |
2 (a) |
Ordered answered with respect to Tom Molnar, but not Trillium |
87 |
460 |
04/14/2004 |
516 |
2186 – 2189 |
2 (a) |
Ordered answered with respect to documents, not with respect to inquiries |
100 |
1518 |
06/11/2004 |
1284 |
5432 |
2 (a) |
Ordered answered with respect to documents |
126 |
411 |
04/14/2004 |
496 |
2092 – 2096 |
2 (b) |
Ordered answered |
127 |
412 |
04/14/2004 |
0496 – 0498 |
2097 – 2106 |
2 (b) |
Ordered answered with respect to Tom Molnar, not with respect to Trillium |
128 |
413 |
04/14/2004 |
0496 – 0498 |
2100 – 2106 |
2 (b) |
Ordered answered with respect to Tom Molnar, not with respect to Trillium |
130 |
418 |
04/14/2004 |
0498 - |
2109, 2109, 2114 |
2 (b) |
Ordered answered, but not with respect to Apotex |
132 |
424 |
04/14/2004 |
0500 – 0501 |
2116 – 2118 |
2 (b) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
139 |
468 |
04/14/2004 |
519 |
2196 – 2198 |
2 (b) |
Ordered answered with respect to Nu-Pharm and documents only with respect to Trillium |
140 |
469 |
04/14/2004 |
519 |
2197 |
2 (b) |
Ordered answered with respect to Nu-Pharm and documents only with respect to Trillium |
141 |
470 |
04/14/2004 |
519 |
2197 – 2198 |
2 (b) |
Ordered answered with respect to Nu-Pharm and documents only with respect to Trillium |
142 |
471 |
04/14/2004 |
0519 - |
2199 – 2203 |
2 (b) |
Ordered answered with respect to Tom Molnar and documents only with respect to Trillium |
143 |
473 |
04/14/2004 |
520 |
2206 – 2209 |
2 (b) |
Ordered answered with respect to Tom Molnar but not for Trillium. |
145 |
479 |
04/14/2004 |
523 |
2224 – 2225 |
2 (b) |
Ordered answered with respect to Tom Molnar but not for Trillium. |
150 |
509 |
04/14/2004 |
0533 – 0534 |
2272, 2274 |
2 (b) |
Ordered answered with respect to Nu-Pharm, but not for Trillium. |
151 |
510 |
04/14/2004 |
0533 – 0534 |
2273, 2274 |
2 (b) |
Ordered answered with respect to Nu-Pharm, but not for Trillium |
160 |
1493 |
06/11/2004 |
1264 |
5373 |
2 (b) |
Ordered answered. |
161 |
1494 |
06/11/2004 |
1264 – 1265 |
5374 |
2 (b) |
Ordered answered. |
162 |
1498 |
06/11/2004 |
1268 – 1269 |
5388 |
2 (b) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
0175 |
529 |
04/14/2004 |
537 |
2284 – 2285 |
2 (c) |
Ordered answered with respect to Tom Molnar, but not for Trillium. |
188 |
2014 |
08/26/2004 |
1703 |
6442 |
2 (c) |
Ordered answered with respect to samples |
192 |
231 |
04/13/2004 |
343 |
1512 – 1513 |
2 (d) |
Ordered answered |
193 |
232 |
04/13/2004 |
343 |
1514 – 1515 |
2 (d) |
Ordered answered |
199 |
530 |
04/14/2004 |
0537 – 0538 |
2286 – 2288 |
2 (d) |
Ordered answered with respect to Nu-Pharm, but not for Trillium. |
200 |
532 |
04/14/2004 |
538 |
2290 |
2 (d) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer. |
214 |
915 |
04/15/2004 |
813 |
3553 – 3558 |
3 (a) |
Ordered answered only with respect to documents |
217 |
1027 |
04/16/2004 |
952 |
4173, 4188 |
3 (a) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
224 |
1037 |
04/16/2004 |
952 |
4184, 4188 |
3 (a) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
225 |
1038 |
04/16/2004 |
952 |
4185, 4188 |
3 (a) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
226 |
1039 |
04/16/2004 |
952 |
4186, 4188 |
3 (a) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
227 |
1040 |
04/16/2004 |
952 |
4187, 4188 |
3 (a) |
Ordered answered |
229 |
1074 |
04/16/2004 |
975 |
4278 |
3 (a) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
230 |
1075 |
04/16/2004 |
0976 – 0977 |
4279 |
3 (a) |
Ordered answered except that Signa is with respect to documents only |
239 |
1156 |
06/11/2004 |
1066 |
4588 |
3 (a) |
Ordered answered |
242 |
1205 |
06/11/2004 |
1091 |
4697 |
3 (a) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
252 |
1219 |
06/11/2004 |
1096 – 1097 |
4711 |
3 (a) |
|
253 |
1220 |
06/11/2004 |
1096 – 1097 |
4711 |
3 (a) |
Ordered answered for Nu-Pharm, but not for remainder. |
254 |
1226 |
06/11/2004 |
1100 – 1101 |
4725 – 4728 |
3 (a) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
255 |
1227 |
06/11/2004 |
1104 – 1105 |
4735 |
3 (a) |
Ordered answered |
256 |
1250 |
06/11/2004 |
1125 – 1126 |
4822 – 4823 |
3 (a) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
258 |
1260 |
06/11/2004 |
1130 – 1131 |
4841 |
3 (a) |
Ordered answered for the samples, but not for Trillium. |
260 |
1315 |
06/11/2004 |
1167 |
4992 |
3 (a) |
Ordered to be answered for Signa’s Certificates of Analysis. |
261 |
1318 |
06/11/2004 |
1169 – 1170 |
4998 – 5000 |
3 (a) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
267 |
1383 |
06/11/2004 |
1203 |
5149 |
3 (a) |
Ordered answered with respect to Tom Molnar, but not for Trillium. |
268 |
1433 |
06/11/2004 |
1230 |
5243 – 5244 |
3 (a) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
269 |
1437 |
06/11/2004 |
1232 |
5251 |
3 (a) |
Ordered answered |
270 |
1439 |
06/11/2004 |
1232 |
5255 |
3 (a) |
Ordered answered with respect to Nu-Pharm, but not for Trillium. |
282 |
1801 |
08/25/2004 |
1519 – 1520 |
6081 |
3 (a) |
Ordered answered |
297 |
1056 |
04/16/2004 |
961 |
4219 |
3 (b) |
Ordered answered |
304 |
1184 |
06/11/2004 |
1083 |
4660 |
3 (b) |
Ordered answered |
307 |
1187 |
06/11/2004 |
1084 |
4666 |
3 (b) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
308 |
1188 |
06/11/2004 |
1084 – 1085 |
4667 |
3 (b) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
309 |
1189 |
06/11/2004 |
1085 |
4668 |
3 (b) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
325 |
1467 |
06/11/2004 |
1247 |
5313 |
3 (b) |
Ordered answered |
329 |
1263 |
06/11/2004 |
1132 – 1133 |
4847 – 4851 |
3 (c) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
331 |
1265 |
06/11/2004 |
1134 |
4856 – 4857 |
3 (c) |
Ordered answered only for portion of the question where Nu-Pharm’s lawyer’s are asked to provide his or her knowledge of the dates of negotiations |
332 |
1266 |
06/11/2004 |
1135 |
4858 |
3 (c) |
Ordered answered for signed versions, but not for drafts |
333 |
1267 |
06/11/2004 |
1135 |
4859 |
3 (c) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
335 |
1269 |
06/11/2004 |
1137 |
4863 |
3 (c) |
Ordered answered, relating to facts only, subject to proper claim for privilege |
343 |
1716 |
08/25/2004 |
1463 |
5942 |
3 (c) |
Ordered answered by Ron Saban |
344 |
1717 |
08/25/2004 |
1463 |
5943 |
3 (c) |
Ordered answered by Ron Saban |
373 |
1311 |
06/11/2004 |
1165 – 1166 |
4985 |
3 (d) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
374 |
1312 |
06/11/2004 |
1166 |
4986 – 4987 |
3 (d) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
388 |
1372 |
06/11/2004 |
1199 |
5126 |
3 (d) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
389 |
1373 |
06/11/2004 |
1199 |
5127 |
3 (d) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
416 |
1445 |
06/11/2004 |
1236 |
5266 – 5267 |
3 (d) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
425 |
1502 |
06/11/2004 |
1271 – 1272 |
5400 – 5402 |
3 (d) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
426 |
1503 |
06/11/2004 |
1272 |
5401 |
3 (d) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
436 |
707 |
04/15/2004 |
656 |
2807 |
4 |
Ordered answered |
454 |
885 |
04/15/2004 |
788 |
3442 |
4 |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
562 |
583 |
04/14/2004 |
0566 -0567 |
2402- 2404 |
6 (a) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
606 |
826 |
04/15/2004 |
741 |
3206 |
6 (b) |
Ordered answered |
636 |
174 |
04/13/2004 |
0290 – 0291 |
1275 – 1276 |
7 (a) |
Ordered answered |
700 |
380 |
04/14/2004 |
0482 – 0483 |
2042 – 2048 |
7 (b) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
705 |
431 |
04/14/2004 |
0503 – 0504 |
2133 |
7 (b) |
Ordered answered |
717 |
567 |
04/14/2004 |
558 |
2363 |
7 (b) |
Ordered answered |
719 |
569 |
04/14/2004 |
0558 - 0559 |
2364 – 2365 |
7 (b) |
Ordered answered |
0722 |
196 |
04/13/2004 |
0304 – |
1351 – |
7 (c) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need |
764 |
320 |
04/13/2004 |
0431 – |
1856 – |
7 (c) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need |
783 |
399 |
04/14/2004 |
0490 – |
2076 – |
7 (c) |
Ordered answered |
789 |
432 |
04/14/2004 |
504 |
2135 – |
7 (c) |
Ordered answered |
799 |
456 |
04/14/2004 |
512 |
2180 – |
7 (c) |
Ordered answered |
903 |
676 |
04/14/2004 |
630 |
2709 – 2714 |
8 (b) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
909 |
731 |
04/15/2004 |
0687-0688 |
2950 |
8 (b) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
910 |
733 |
04/15/2004 |
0689-0690 |
2960 – 2963 |
8 (b) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
960 |
806 |
04/15/2004 |
718 |
3113 – 3114 |
8 (b) |
Ordered answered only to the extent of Nu-Pharm’s knowledge, information and belief as to whether the document referenced was provided to Nu-Pharm. |
1021 |
890 |
04/15/2004 |
800 |
3486 – 3488 |
9 (b) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
1029 |
905 |
04/15/2004 |
807 |
3527 – 3528 |
9 (b) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
1063 |
1917 |
08/26/2004 |
1637-1638 |
6287 |
10 (b) |
Ordered to produce only the final version of each provincial |
1486 |
1393 |
06/11/2004 |
1212 |
5180 |
14 |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need |
1487 |
1394 |
06/11/2004 |
1212 |
5181 |
14 |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need |
1520 |
1189 |
06/11/2004 |
1085 |
4668 |
18 (a) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need |
SCHEDULE ‘B’
No |
Request |
Discovery |
Page |
Question |
|
|
|
|||||
296 |
1055 |
04/16/2004 |
961 |
4218 |
3 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
311 |
1323 |
06/11/2004 |
1172 – 1173 |
5011 – 5014 |
3 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
312 |
1324 |
06/11/2004 |
1173 |
5017 – 5018 |
3 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
313 |
1325 |
06/11/2004 |
1173 |
5019 |
3 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
314 |
1326 |
06/11/2004 |
1173 – 1174 |
5020 |
3 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
315 |
1328 |
06/11/2004 |
1174 |
5023 |
3 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
316 |
1330 |
06/11/2004 |
1175-1176 |
5026 – 5028 |
3 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
318 |
1342 |
06/11/2004 |
1185 |
5068 |
3 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
319 |
1401 |
06/11/2004 |
1217 |
5199 |
3 (b) |
Agreed to answer with respect to Nu-Pharm, but not Trillium |
|
|||||
320 |
1423 |
06/11/2004 |
1228 |
5234 |
3 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
321 |
1434 |
06/11/2004 |
1230 – 1231 |
5245 – 5246 |
3 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
322 |
1464 |
06/11/2004 |
1246 |
5308 – 5309 |
3 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
323 |
1465 |
06/11/2004 |
1246 |
5310 |
3 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
324 |
1466 |
06/11/2004 |
1246 |
5311 |
3 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
328 |
1262 |
06/11/2004 |
1132 |
4846 |
3 (c) |
Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
366 |
1228 |
06/11/2004 |
1105 |
4736 |
3 (d) |
Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
368 |
1300 |
06/11/2004 |
1159 – 1160 |
4963 – 4964 |
3 (d) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
369 |
1306 |
06/11/2004 |
1165 |
4981 |
3 (d) |
Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
370 |
1307 |
06/11/2004 |
1165 |
4982 |
3 (d) |
Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
371 |
1309 |
06/11/2004 |
1165 |
4983 |
3 (d) |
Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer
|
|
|||||
372 |
1310 |
06/11/2004 |
1165 |
4984 |
3 (d) |
Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
375 |
1320 |
06/11/2004 |
1170 |
5003 – 5005 |
3 (d) |
Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
376 |
1321 |
06/11/2004 |
1171 |
5006 - 5009 |
3 (d) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
377 |
1322 |
06/11/2004 |
1172 |
5010 |
3 (d) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
378 |
1334 |
06/11/2004 |
1177 |
5032 – 5034 |
3 (d) |
Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
379 |
1344 |
06/11/2004 |
1186 |
5071 – 5074 |
3 (d) |
Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
380 |
1345 |
06/11/2004 |
1187 |
5075 |
3 (d) |
Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
381 |
1351 |
06/11/2004 |
1187 |
5077 |
3 (d) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
382 |
1352 |
06/11/2004 |
1188 |
5078 |
3 (d) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
383 |
1353 |
06/11/2004 |
1188 |
5079 |
3 (d) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
384 |
1367 |
06/11/2004 |
1197 |
5115 – 5116 |
3 (d) |
Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
385 |
1368 |
06/11/2004 |
1197 |
5117 |
3 (d) |
Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
386 |
1370 |
06/11/2004 |
1198 |
5124 |
3 (d) |
Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
387 |
1371 |
06/11/2004 |
1199 |
5125 |
3 (d) |
Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
391 |
1391 |
06/11/2004 |
1211 |
5176 – 5177 |
3 (d) |
Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
392 |
1392 |
06/11/2004 |
1211 |
5178 |
3 (d) |
Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
393 |
1395 |
06/11/2004 |
1213 |
5184 |
3 (d) |
Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
395 |
1403 |
06/11/2004 |
1218 |
5202 – 5203 |
3 (d) |
Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
397 |
1406 |
06/11/2004 |
1220 |
5209 |
3 (d) |
Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
398 |
1407 |
06/11/2004 |
1220 |
5210 |
3 (d) |
Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
400 |
1410 |
06/11/2004 |
1222 |
5215 – 5216 |
3 (d) |
Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
401 |
1413 |
06/11/2004 |
1223 |
5218 |
3 (d) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
402 |
1414 |
06/11/2004 |
1224 |
5219 |
3 (d) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
403 |
1416 |
06/11/2004 |
1225 |
5225 |
3 (d) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
404 |
1417 |
06/11/2004 |
1225 |
5226 |
3 (d) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
407 |
1420 |
06/11/2004 |
1227 |
5230 |
3 (d) |
Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
408 |
1421 |
06/11/2004 |
1227 |
5231 |
3 (d) |
Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
409 |
1424 |
06/11/2004 |
1228 |
5235 |
3 (d) |
Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
410 |
1426 |
06/11/2004 |
1229 |
5237 |
3 (d) |
Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
411 |
1427 |
06/11/2004 |
1229 |
5238 |
3 (d) |
Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
412 |
1429 |
06/11/2004 |
1229 – 1230 |
5239 |
3 (d) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
413 |
1430 |
06/11/2004 |
1229 – 1230 |
5239 |
3 (d) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
414 |
1431 |
06/11/2004 |
1230 |
5240 - 5241 |
3 (d) |
Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
415 |
1432 |
06/11/2004 |
1230 |
5242 |
3 (d) |
Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
418 |
1447 |
06/11/2004 |
1236 |
5269 |
3 (d) |
Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
419 |
1449 |
06/11/2004 |
1237 |
5273 |
3 (d) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
420 |
1461 |
06/11/2004 |
1245 |
5305 |
3 (d) |
Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
422 |
1474 |
06/11/2004 |
1252 – 1253 |
5332 |
3 (d) |
Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
428 |
1506 |
06/11/2004 |
1274 |
5407 |
3 (d) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
429 |
1508 |
06/11/2004 |
1275 |
5409 |
3 (d) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
431 |
1513 |
06/11/2004 |
1278 – 1279 |
5418 |
3 (d) |
Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
437 |
822 |
04/15/2004 |
736 |
3188 |
4 |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
438 |
827 |
04/15/2004 |
743 |
3213 – 3217 |
4 |
Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
440 |
829 |
04/15/2004 |
743 |
3218 |
4 |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
441 |
830 |
04/15/2004 |
743 |
3219 – 3220 |
4 |
Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
444 |
836 |
04/15/2004 |
759 |
3307 |
4 |
Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
445 |
837 |
04/15/2004 |
760 |
3308 |
4 |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
446 |
838 |
04/15/2004 |
760 |
3309 |
4 |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
447 |
840 |
04/15/2004 |
763 |
3318 - 3319 |
4 |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
448 |
841 |
04/15/2004 |
764 |
3320 |
4 |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
449 |
842 |
04/15/2004 |
764 |
3321 |
4 |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
452 |
845 |
04/15/2004 |
766 |
3329 |
4 |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
458 |
1583 |
08/24/2004 |
1346 |
5617 |
4 |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
480 |
222 |
04/13/2004 |
0332 – 0333 |
1475 |
5 (a) |
Agreed to be answered |
||||||
486 |
230 |
04/13/2004 |
0341 – 0342 |
1507 |
5 (a) |
Agreed to be answered |
||||||
515 |
706 |
04/15/2004 |
0654 – 0656 |
2804 – 2806 |
5 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
519 |
1112 |
04/16/2004 |
1030 |
4502 – 4503 |
5 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
563 |
585 |
04/14/2004 |
568 |
2409 |
6 (a) |
Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
570 |
606 |
04/14/2004 |
579 |
2468 – 2469 |
6 (a) |
Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
571 |
607 |
04/14/2004 |
580 |
2470 |
6 (a) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
593 |
307 |
04/13/2004 |
412 |
1785 – 1786 |
6 (b) |
Agreed to answer, but not with respect to Mr. Hems |
|
|||||
596 |
580 |
04/14/2004 |
0563 – 0564 |
2391 – 2397 |
6 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
600 |
597 |
04/14/2004 |
575 |
2447 |
6 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
604 |
611 |
04/14/2004 |
580 |
2472, 2474 |
6 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
637 |
175 |
04/13/2004 |
292 |
1285 |
7 (a) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
645 |
238 |
04/13/2004 |
345 |
1523 - 1525 |
7 (a) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
650 |
582 |
04/14/2004 |
0565 – 0566 |
2401 |
7 (a) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger, Anthony van Doornik and Dawn Culp only |
|
|||||
667 |
176 |
04/13/2004 |
295 |
1300 |
7 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
669 |
178 |
04/13/2004 |
295 |
1303 |
7 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
670 |
179 |
04/13/2004 |
0295 – 0296 |
1304 |
7 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
680 |
208 |
04/13/2004 |
314 |
1403 |
7 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
681 |
210 |
04/13/2004 |
0316 – 0317 |
1405 – 1411 |
7 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
685 |
214 |
04/13/2004 |
318 |
1417 |
7 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
689 |
237 |
04/13/2004 |
345 |
1522 |
7 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
695 |
363 |
04/14/2004 |
0473 - 0474 |
2006 - 2009 |
7 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
696 |
364 |
04/14/2004 |
474 |
2010 - 2011 |
7 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
697 |
365 |
04/14/2004 |
475 |
2017 |
7 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
698 |
366 |
04/14/2004 |
0475 – 0476 |
2018 – 2019, 2023 |
7 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
699 |
378 |
04/14/2004 |
479 |
2030 – 2032 |
7 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
702 |
421 |
04/14/2004 |
500 |
2111 – 2114 |
7 (b) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger, Anthony van Doornik and Dawn Culp, but not Apotex |
|
|||||
703 |
422 |
04/14/2004 |
500 |
2112, 2114 |
7 (b) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger, Anthony van Doornik and Dawn Culp, but not Apotex |
|
|||||
706 |
433 |
04/14/2004 |
505 |
2138, 2139, 2142 |
7 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
708 |
472 |
04/14/2004 |
520 |
2204 - 2205 |
7 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
710 |
475 |
04/14/2004 |
521 |
2212 |
7 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
712 |
534 |
04/14/2004 |
539 |
2292 – 2293 |
7 (b) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
|
|||||
716 |
566 |
04/14/2004 |
0557 – 0558 |
2352 - 2362 |
7 (b) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief |
|
|||||
718 |
568 |
04/14/2004 |
0558 – 0559 |
2364 – 2365 |
7 (b) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Dorrnik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief |
|
|||||
724 |
273 |
04/13/2004 |
387 |
1708 – 1710 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
728 |
277 |
04/13/2004 |
391 |
1725 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
729 |
278 |
04/13/2004 |
391 |
1726 |
7 (c) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
731 |
280 |
04/13/2004 |
392 |
1730 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
732 |
281 |
04/13/2004 |
393 |
1733 – 1735 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
733 |
282 |
04/13/2004 |
394 |
1738 |
7 (c) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
737 |
286 |
04/13/2004 |
0395 – 0396 |
1743 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
738 |
287 |
04/13/2004 |
396 |
1744 – 1746 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger, Anthony van Doornik and Dawn Culp, but not for Mr. Hems |
|
|||||
740 |
289 |
04/13/2004 |
397 |
1750 - 1752 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger, Anthony van Doornik and Dawn Culp, but not for Mr. Hems |
|
|||||
744 |
293 |
04/13/2004 |
399 |
1758 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
749 |
298 |
04/13/2004 |
408 |
1770 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
752 |
301 |
04/13/2004 |
409 |
1774 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
754 |
303 |
04/13/2004 |
410 |
1779 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
756 |
305 |
04/13/2004 |
411 |
1783 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger, Anthony van Doornik and Dawn Culp |
|
|||||
760 |
316 |
04/13/2004 |
0420 – 0421 |
1817 – 1822 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
762 |
318 |
04/13/2004 |
0429 – 0430 |
1848 – 1853 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
765 |
356 |
04/14/2004 |
0467 – 0469 |
1984, 1988, 1991 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger, Anthony van Doornik and Dawn Culp |
|
|||||
766 |
357 |
04/14/2004 |
469 |
1984, 1988, 1992 |
7 (c) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
767 |
358 |
04/14/2004 |
0467 – 0469 |
1985, 1986, 1991 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
768 |
359 |
04/14/2004 |
469 |
1985, 1986, 1992 |
7 (c) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
|
|
|||||
770 |
361 |
04/14/2004 |
469 |
1992 |
7 (c) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
771 |
362 |
04/14/2004 |
0469 – 0470 |
1994 - 1995 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered, but not for Hems |
|
|||||
772 |
381 |
04/14/2004 |
0483 – 0484 |
2409 – 2056 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
773 |
382 |
04/14/2004 |
484 |
2049, 2057 |
7 (c) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
774 |
383 |
04/14/2004 |
0483 – 0484 |
2050 – 2056 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
775 |
384 |
04/14/2004 |
484 |
2050, 2057 |
7 (c) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
776 |
385 |
04/14/2004 |
0483 – 0484 |
2051, 2056 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
777 |
386 |
04/14/2004 |
484 |
2051 – 2057 |
7 (c) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
778 |
387 |
04/14/2004 |
484 |
2054, 2055, 2057 |
7 (c) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
779 |
388 |
04/14/2004 |
0483 – 0484 |
2054, 2055, 2056 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
782 |
391 |
04/14/2004 |
486 |
2061 |
7 (c) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
786 |
403 |
04/14/2004 |
493 |
2085 |
7 (c) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
787 |
428 |
04/14/2004 |
0502 – 0503 |
2126 – 2128 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Daw Culp’s knowledge, information and belief |
|
|||||
788 |
429 |
04/14/2004 |
0502 – 0503 |
2127 - 2128 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Daw Culp’s knowledge, information and belief |
|
|||||
791 |
436 |
04/14/2004 |
505 |
2140 – 2142 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
794 |
449 |
04/14/2004 |
509 |
2163 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
797 |
452 |
04/14/2004 |
509 |
2164 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
801 |
481 |
04/14/2004 |
524 |
2229 |
7 (c) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
|
|
|||||
803 |
483 |
04/14/2004 |
524 |
2232 |
7 (c) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
805 |
485 |
04/14/2004 |
525 |
2235 |
7 (c) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
807 |
487 |
04/14/2004 |
526 |
2239 |
7 (c) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
808 |
488 |
04/14/2004 |
0526 – 0527 |
2241 – 2242 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered under reserve of objection |
|
|||||
817 |
498 |
04/14/2004 |
531 |
2264, 2282 |
7 (c) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
818 |
499 |
04/14/2004 |
531 |
2264, 2282 |
7 (c) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
819 |
500 |
04/14/2004 |
531 |
2264, 2282 |
7 (c) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
820 |
501 |
04/14/2004 |
531 |
2264, 2282 |
7 (c) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
821 |
502 |
04/14/2004 |
531 |
2264, 2282 |
7 (c) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
822 |
503 |
04/14/2004 |
531 |
2264, 2282 |
7 (c) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
823 |
504 |
04/14/2004 |
531 |
2264, 2282 |
7 (c) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
824 |
514 |
04/14/2004 |
537 |
2283 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
825 |
515 |
04/14/2004 |
537 |
2283 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
826 |
516 |
04/14/2004 |
537 |
2283 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
829 |
519 |
04/14/2004 |
537 |
2283 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
831 |
521 |
04/14/2004 |
537 |
2283 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
832 |
522 |
04/14/2005 |
537 |
2282 |
7 (c) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
833 |
523 |
04/14/2005 |
537 |
2282 |
7 (c) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
834 |
538 |
04/14/2004 |
0541 – 0542 |
2302 – 2306 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
837 |
653 |
04/14/2004 |
619 |
2646, 2649 |
8 (a) |
Agreed to answered with respect to Joseph Beyger, Anthony van Doornik and Dawn Culp |
|
|||||
840 |
656 |
04/14/2004 |
619 |
2647, 2650 |
8 (a) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
842 |
658 |
04/14/2004 |
619 |
2648, 2650 |
8 (a) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger, Anthony van Doornik and Dawn Culp |
|
|||||
843 |
659 |
04/14/2004 |
620 |
2651, 2655 |
8 (a) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
846 |
662 |
04/14/2004 |
620 |
2652, 2655 |
8 (a) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
848 |
664 |
04/14/2004 |
620 |
2653, 2655 |
8 (a) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
850 |
668 |
04/14/2004 |
626 |
2685 |
8 (a) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
852 |
673 |
04/14/2004 |
629 |
2701 |
8 (a) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
853 |
674 |
04/14/2004 |
629 |
2702 – 2706 |
8 (a) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
854 |
675 |
04/14/2004 |
629 |
2707 |
8 (a) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief . |
|
|||||
856 |
678 |
04/14/2004 |
632 |
2723 |
8 (a) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
862 |
684 |
04/14/2004 |
633 |
2734, 2737 |
8 (a) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
863 |
685 |
04/14/2004 |
634 |
2734, 2741 |
8 (a) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
869 |
702 |
04/14/2004 |
641 |
2766 – 2768 |
8 (a) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
871 |
704 |
04/14/2004 |
641 |
2767 – 2768, 2769 - 2770 |
8 (a) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
873 |
724 |
04/15/2004 |
683 |
2932 – 2934 |
8 (a) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
874 |
735 |
04/15/2004 |
691 |
2967 – 2968 |
8 (a) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
875 |
736 |
04/15/2004 |
691 |
2969 |
8 (a) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
888 |
584 |
04/14/2004 |
0567 - 0568 |
2408 |
8 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
889 |
638 |
04/14/2004 |
0611 – 0612 |
2606 – 2609 |
8 (b) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief |
|
|||||
891 |
640 |
04/14/2004 |
0612 – 0613 |
2611 – 2616, 2619 |
8 (b) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief |
|
|||||
892 |
641 |
04/14/2004 |
613 |
2617 – 2618, 2619 |
8 (b) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief |
|
|||||
894 |
644 |
04/14/2004 |
615 |
2624 |
8 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
895 |
648 |
04/14/2004 |
617 |
2644 – 2634 |
8 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
896 |
649 |
04/14/2004 |
617 |
2635 |
8 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
897 |
650 |
04/14/2004 |
617 |
2636 |
8 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
898 |
665 |
04/14/2004 |
0625 – 0626 |
2680 |
8 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
899 |
666 |
04/14/2004 |
626 |
2681 |
8 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
900 |
669 |
04/14/2004 |
0626 – 0627 |
2687 – 2688 |
8 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
901 |
670 |
04/14/2004 |
627 |
2687, 2689 |
8 (b) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief only. |
|
|||||
902 |
671 |
04/14/2004 |
627 |
2687, 2690 |
8 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
904 |
686 |
04/14/2004 |
633 |
2735, 2737 |
8 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
905 |
688 |
04/14/2004 |
634 |
2735, 2741 |
8 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
906 |
689 |
04/14/2004 |
634 |
2735, 2741 |
8 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
907 |
725 |
04/15/2004 |
0683-0684 |
2935 |
8 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
908 |
726 |
04/15/2004 |
684 |
2936 |
8 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
911 |
734 |
04/15/2004 |
690 |
2964 – 2966 |
8 (b) |
Agreed to be answered for Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief up to “Inc” and for the rest of the question, agreed not to answer |
|
|||||
912 |
738 |
04/15/2004 |
693 |
2981, 2985 |
8 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
|
|
|||||
914 |
740 |
04/15/2004 |
693 |
2983, 2985 |
8 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
915 |
741 |
04/15/2004 |
0693-0694 |
2984, 2985 |
8 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
916 |
742 |
04/15/2004 |
694 |
2981, 2986 |
8 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
917 |
743 |
04/15/2004 |
694 |
2982, 2986 |
8 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
918 |
744 |
04/15/2004 |
694 |
2983, 2986 |
8 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
919 |
745 |
04/15/2004 |
694 |
2984, 2986 |
8 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
920 |
746 |
04/15/2004 |
694 |
2981, 2987 |
8 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
921 |
747 |
04/15/2004 |
694 |
2982, 2987 |
8 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
922 |
748 |
04/15/2004 |
694 |
2983, 2987 |
8 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
923 |
749 |
04/15/2004 |
694 |
2984, 2987 |
8 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
924 |
750 |
04/15/2004 |
696 |
2981, 2996 – 2997 |
8 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
925 |
751 |
04/15/2004 |
696 |
2982, 2996 – 2997 |
8 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
926 |
752 |
04/15/2004 |
696 |
2983, 2996 - 2997 |
8 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
927 |
753 |
04/15/2004 |
696 |
2984, 2996 – 2997 |
8 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
928 |
754 |
04/15/2004 |
696 |
2982, 2996 – 2998 |
8 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
929 |
755 |
04/15/2004 |
696 |
2983, 2996 – 2997 |
8 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
930 |
756 |
04/15/2004 |
696 |
2984, 2996 – 2997 |
8 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
931 |
757 |
04/15/2004 |
696 |
2981, 2996 – 2997 |
8 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
932 |
758 |
04/15/2004 |
696 |
2981, 2996 - 2997 |
8 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
933 |
759 |
04/15/2004 |
696 |
2982, 2996 – 2997 |
8 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
934 |
760 |
04/15/2004 |
696 |
2983, 2996 – 2997 |
8 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
935 |
761 |
04/15/2004 |
696 |
2984, 2996 – 2997 |
8 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
936 |
762 |
04/15/2004 |
696 |
2981, 2996 |
8 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
937 |
763 |
04/15/2004 |
696 |
2982, 2998 |
8 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
938 |
764 |
04/15/2004 |
696 |
2983, 2998 |
8 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
939 |
765 |
04/15/2004 |
696 |
2984, 2998 |
8 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
940 |
766 |
04/15/2004 |
696 |
2984, 2998 |
8 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
941 |
767 |
04/15/2004 |
696 |
2982, 2998 |
8 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
942 |
768 |
04/15/2004 |
696 |
2983, 2998 |
8 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
943 |
769 |
04/15/2004 |
696 |
2981, 2998 |
8 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
944 |
770 |
04/15/2004 |
696 |
2981, 2998 |
8 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
945 |
771 |
04/15/2004 |
696 |
2982, 2998 |
8 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
946 |
772 |
04/15/2004 |
696 |
2983, 2998 |
8 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
947 |
773 |
04/15/2004 |
696 |
2984, 2998 |
8 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
949 |
775 |
04/15/2004 |
698 |
3004 – 3008 |
8 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
950 |
776 |
04/15/2004 |
698 |
3004 - 3008 |
8 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
951 |
777 |
04/15/2004 |
698 |
3004 – 3008 |
8 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
952 |
778 |
04/15/2004 |
698 |
300 4- 3008 |
8 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
954 |
780 |
04/15/2004 |
700 |
3014 |
8 (b) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief |
|
|||||
955 |
781 |
04/15/2004 |
700 |
3015 - 3019 |
8 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
956 |
782 |
04/15/2004 |
700 |
3020 |
8 (b) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief |
|
|||||
959 |
805 |
04/15/2004 |
718 |
3112 |
8 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
963 |
887 |
04/15/2004 |
0793-0794 |
3462 – 3464 |
9 (a) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief |
|
|||||
986 |
187 |
04/13/2004 |
0300 – 0301 |
1332 – 1337 |
9 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
987 |
188 |
04/13/2004 |
301 |
1338 |
9 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
988 |
189 |
04/13/2004 |
0301 – 0302 |
1339 |
9 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
989 |
190 |
04/13/2004 |
302 |
1340 -1342 |
9 (b) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief, but not Hems |
|
|||||
990 |
852 |
04/15/2004 |
776 |
3368, 3373 |
9 (b) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief |
|
|||||
991 |
853 |
04/15/2004 |
776 |
3369, 3373 |
9 (b) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief |
|
|||||
992 |
854 |
04/15/2004 |
776 |
3370, 3373 |
9 (b) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief |
|
|||||
993 |
855 |
04/15/2004 |
776 |
3368, 3374 |
9 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
994 |
856 |
04/15/2004 |
776 |
3369, 3374 |
9 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
995 |
857 |
04/15/2004 |
776 |
3370, 3374 |
9 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
996 |
858 |
04/15/2004 |
777 |
3368, 3378 – 3379 |
9 (b) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief |
|
|||||
997 |
859 |
04/15/2004 |
777 |
3369, 3378 - 3379 |
9 (b) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief |
|
|||||
998 |
860 |
04/15/2004 |
777 |
3370, 3378- 3379 |
9 (b) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief |
|
|||||
999 |
861 |
04/15/2004 |
777 |
3368, 3380 - 3381 |
9 (b) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief |
|
|||||
1000 |
862 |
04/15/2004 |
777 |
3369, 3380 – 3381 |
9 (b) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief |
|
|||||
1001 |
863 |
04/15/2004 |
777 |
3370, 3380 – 3381 |
9 (b) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief |
|
|||||
1002 |
864 |
04/15/2004 |
777 |
3368, 3382 – 3383 |
9 (b) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief |
|
|||||
1003 |
865 |
04/15/2004 |
777 |
3369, 3382 - 3383 |
9 (b) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief |
|
|||||
1004 |
866 |
04/15/2004 |
777 |
3370, 3383 – 3383 |
9 (b) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief |
|
|||||
1005 |
867 |
04/15/2004 |
778 |
3368, 3384 - 3386 |
9 (b) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief |
|
|||||
1006 |
868 |
04/15/2004 |
778 |
3369, 3384 – 3885 |
9 (b) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief |
|
|||||
1007 |
869 |
04/15/2004 |
778 |
3370, 3384 – 3386 |
9 (b) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief |
|
|||||
1008 |
870 |
04/15/2004 |
778 |
3368, 3387 – 3388 |
9 (b) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief |
|
|||||
1009 |
871 |
04/15/2004 |
778 |
3369, 3387 - 3388 |
9 (b) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief |
|
|||||
1010 |
872 |
04/15/2004 |
778 |
3370, 3387 – 3388 |
9 (b) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief |
|
|||||
1011 |
873 |
04/15/2004 |
0778-0779 |
3368, 3389 – 3391 |
9 (b) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief |
|
|||||
1012 |
874 |
04/15/2004 |
0778-0779 |
3369, 3389 - 3391 |
9 (b) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief |
|
|||||
1013 |
875 |
04/15/2004 |
0778-0779 |
3370, 3389 – 3391 |
9 (b) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief |
|
|||||
1014 |
876 |
04/15/2004 |
779 |
3368, 3392 |
9 (b) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief |
|
|||||
1015 |
877 |
04/15/2004 |
779 |
3369, 3392 |
9 (b) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief |
|
|||||
1016 |
878 |
04/15/2004 |
779 |
3370, 3392 |
9 (b) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief |
|
|||||
1017 |
879 |
04/15/2004 |
781 |
3403 |
9 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
1018 |
880 |
04/15/2004 |
781 |
3404 |
9 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
1019 |
882 |
04/15/2004 |
784 |
3421 |
9 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
1020 |
883 |
04/15/2004 |
785 |
3428 |
9 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
1023 |
895 |
04/15/2004 |
805 |
3508, 3514 |
9 (b) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger, Anthony van Doornik and Dawn Culp |
|
|||||
1024 |
896 |
04/15/2004 |
805 |
3509, 3514 |
9 (b) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger, Anthony van Doornik and Dawn Culp |
|
|||||
1025 |
897 |
04/15/2004 |
805 |
3510, 3514 |
9 (b) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger, Anthony van Doornik and Dawn Culp |
|
|||||
1026 |
898 |
04/15/2004 |
805 |
3511, 3514 |
9 (b) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger, Anthony van Doornik and Dawn Culp |
|
|||||
1027 |
899 |
04/15/2004 |
805 |
3512, 3514 |
9 (b) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger, Anthony van Doornik and Dawn Culp |
|
|||||
1030 |
928 |
04/15/2004 |
832 |
3637 |
9 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
|
|
|||||
1031 |
929 |
04/15/2004 |
833 |
3638 |
9 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
1066 |
1923 |
08/26/2004 |
1640 |
6294 |
10 (b) |
Agreed to be answered under reserve of objection during the hearing of the motion |
|
|||||
1067 |
1924 |
08/26/2004 |
1640 – 1641 |
6295 |
10 (b) |
Agreed to be answered under reserve of objection during the hearing of the motion |
|
|||||
1100 |
WI026 |
04/22/2005 |
|
|
11 (a) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Benyak/Nu-Pharm’s knowledge, information and belief, subject to proper claim of privilege, under reserve of objection |
|
|||||
1377 |
1683 |
08/25/2004 |
1446 |
5899 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Nu-Pharm’s and Benyak’s knowledge, information and belief, under reserve of objection during the hearing of the motion |
|
|||||
1489 |
258 |
04/13/2004 |
0377 – 0378 |
1658 – 1660 |
15 |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
1499 |
163 |
04/13/2004 |
279 |
1222 |
16 (b) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
1500 |
164 |
04/13/2004 |
280 |
1223 – 1224 |
16 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
1501 |
165 |
04/13/2004 |
280 – 281 |
1228 – 1229 |
16 (b) |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
1507 |
536 |
04/14/2004 |
0539 – 0541 |
2297 – 2299 |
17 |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Tom Molnar and for not Trillium |
|
|||||
1508 |
537 |
04/14/2004 |
541 |
2300 – 2301 |
17 |
Agreed to be answered with respect to Tom Molnar and not for Trillium |
|
|||||
1514 |
709 |
04/15/2004 |
661 |
2830 |
17 |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
|||||
1515 |
710 |
04/15/2004 |
661 |
2831 |
17 |
Agreed to be answered |
|
|||||
1565 |
1550 |
08/24/2004 |
1320 |
5515 |
18 (d) |
Agreed to be answered under reserve of objection during the hearing of the motion |
|
|||||
1566 |
1551 |
08/24/2004 |
1321 |
5524 |
18 (d) |
Agreed to be answered under reserve of objection during the hearing of the motion
|
|
|||||
1567 |
1585 |
08/24/2004 |
1349 |
5627 |
18 (d) |
Agreed to be answered under reserve of objection during the hearing of the motion |
|
|||||
SCHEDULE ‘C’
|
Request |
Discovery Date |
Page |
Question
|
|
|
1 |
180 |
04/13/2004 |
298 |
1320 – 1322 |
1 (b) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
10A |
579 |
04/14/2004 |
563 |
2387, 2390 |
1 (b) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
14 |
881 |
04/15/2004 |
783 |
3409 – 3414 |
1 (b) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
70 |
246 |
04/13/2004 |
364 |
1613 – 1614 |
2 (a) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
207 |
993 |
04/15/2004 |
0837 – 038 |
3658 |
2 (d) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
212 |
729 |
04/15/2004 |
685 |
2943 – 2944 |
3 (a) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
236 |
1150 |
06/11/2004 |
1063 – 1064 |
4577 – 4579 |
3 (a) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
237 |
1151 |
06/11/2004 |
1064 |
4579 |
3 (a) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
238 |
1152 |
06/11/2004 |
1064 |
4580 |
3 (a) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
259 |
1313 |
06/11/2004 |
1166 |
4988 |
3 (a) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
330 |
1264 |
06/11/2004 |
1132-1133 |
4847-4851 |
3(c) |
Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
433 |
235 |
04/13/2004 |
344 |
1519 |
4 |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
564 |
587 |
04/14/2004 |
0571 |
2428 |
6 (a) |
Agreed to be answered on May 19, 2006 |
573 |
617 |
04/14/2004 |
0584-0585 |
2500-2503 |
6 (a) |
Withdrawn by Moving Parties without prejudice |
598 |
594 |
04/14/2004 |
574 |
2443 |
6 (b) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
603 |
610 |
04/14/2004 |
580 |
2471, 2474 |
6 (b) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
678 |
206 |
04/13/2004 |
0311 – 0312 |
1383 – 1385 |
7 (b) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
684 |
213 |
04/13/2004 |
0317 – 0318 |
1415 – 1416 |
7 (b) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
692 |
328 |
04/13/2004 |
436 |
1880 |
7 (b) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
693 |
329 |
04/13/2004 |
437 |
1881 – 1885 |
7 (b) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
694 |
330 |
04/13/2004 |
0437 – 0438 |
1886 – 1888 |
7 (b) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
712 |
534 |
04/14/2004 |
539 |
2292 – 2293 |
7 (b) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
757 |
312 |
04/13/2004 |
414 |
1796 – 1798 |
7 (c) |
|
758 |
314 |
04/13/2004 |
415 |
1803 – 1805 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
769 |
360 |
04/14/2004 |
0467 – 0469 |
1990, 1991 |
7 (c) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
827 |
517 |
04/14/2004 |
537 |
2283 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
828 |
518 |
04/14/2004 |
537 |
2283 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
830 |
520 |
04/14/2004 |
537 |
2283 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
836 |
651 |
04/14/2004 |
617 |
2637 |
8 (a) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006, under reserve of objection |
838 |
651 |
04/14/2004 |
617 |
2646, 2650 |
8 (a) |
Withdrawn by Moving Parties without prejudice |
858 |
680 |
04/14/2004 |
633 |
2729 – 2733, 2737 |
8 (a) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection
|
860 |
682 |
04/14/2004 |
634 |
2729 – 2733, 2741 |
8 (a) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
966 |
682 |
04/14/2004 |
634 |
3507, 3514 |
9 (a) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
970 |
894 |
04/15/2004 |
807 |
3526 |
9 (a) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
978 |
1804 |
08/25/2004 |
1525 |
6092 |
9 (a) |
Agreed to be answered on June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection without prejudice |
1036 |
219 |
04/13/2004 |
0325 – 0326 |
1442 – 1449 |
10 (a) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
1064 |
1918 |
08/26/2004 |
1638 – 1639 |
6288 – 6289 |
10 (b) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
APPENDIX “II”
Date: 20060809
Court File No.: T-753-99
Ottawa, Ontario, August 9, 2006
PRESENT: Madam Prothonotary Roza Aronovitch
B E T W E E N:
MERCK & CO., INC. and MERCK FROSST CANADA & CO.
Plaintiffs
- and -
NU-PHARM INC., BERNARD SHERMAN
and RICHARD BENYAK
Defendants
ORDER
(Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Richard Benyak and Nu-Pharm Inc. to Answer
Certain Discovery Questions)
UPON motion by the plaintiffs for:
1. an order compelling the defendants Nu-Pharm Inc. (“Nu-Pharm”) and Richard Benyak (“Benyak”) to answer the undertakings given on the examination for discovery of Benyak, in his corporate and individual capacity, held on April 6, 13, 14, 15 and 16, June 11, August, 24, 25, and 26, 2004 and March 4, 2005;
2. an order compelling Nu-Pharm and Benyak to answer discovery questions refused on the examination for discovery of Benyak, in his personal and corporate capacity, held on April 6, 13, 14, 15 and 16, June 11, August 24, 25 and 26, 2004 and March 4, 2005;
3. an order compelling Nu-Pharm and Benyak to answer discovery questions asked by way of written interrogatory;
4. an order compelling Nu-Pharm and Benyak to re-attend on discovery to answer further questions, including questions arising out of the answers provided and documents produced in respect of paragraphs 1-3 above;
5. an order granting the plaintiffs their costs of this motion; and
6. such further and other relief as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court deem just;
AND UPON this Court directing that a subset of the questions listed in the plaintiffs’ categorized charts at Tab 30 of the Moving Parties’ Motion Record be dealt with first (the “Making Inquiries Questions”), said Making Inquiries Questions having been ruled upon in a separate Order;
AND UPON the parties having informed the Court that they had resolved certain of the remaining questions listed at said Tab 30, as indicated in Schedule “C” hereto;
AND UPON the Court having informed the parties of its decision as set out in paragraph 1 below and directed the parties to attempt to resolve others of said remaining questions, subject to appeal of the paragraph 1 decision;
AND UPON the parties having informed the Court thereafter that, given the Court’s direction and its decision as set out in paragraph 1 below, they had reached an agreement resolving certain of said other remaining questions as indicated in Schedule “B” hereto, which agreement includes the terms that such agreement is without prejudice to any party’s right to appeal and that if any of the principles set out in paragraph 1 below is finally overturned after appeal, then the agreement with respect to any Schedule “B” questions affected by the successful appeal will be amended to correspond therewith;
AND UPON reviewing the Moving Parties’ Motion Record and the responding motion record of Benyak and Nu-Pharm, and hearing the submissions of their counsel on June 6, 12 and 13, 2006 on certain unresolved remaining questions;
THIS COURT ORDERS that:
1. The questions contained in categories 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the above-mentioned categorized charts of the plaintiffs are relevant and are to be answered, subject to the following three points:
(a) only proper and reasonable questions are to be answered; and
(b) in answer Nu-Pharm and Benyak must provide their knowledge, information and belief; to the extent the nature of the inquiries to be made of certain specific persons was defined in the Court’s Order on the Making Inquiries Questions, it is not altered by this Order;
(c) questions answered under reserve of objection are answered subject only to the provisos that:
(i) they are answered without admitting their relevance or admissibility at trial; and
(ii) the agreement to answer them cannot be used against Nu-Pharm or Benyak in adjudicating any other question;
and thus Nu-Pharm and Benyak will answer the questions set out in Schedule “A” hereto.
2. Nu-Pharm and Benyak shall produce to the plaintiffs any documents agreed or ordered to be produced, as set out in the schedules hereto, by the day which is 60 days before the commencement of:
(i) the mediation which has been previously ordered by this Court; or
(ii) the re-attendance provided for in paragraph 3 below;
whichever is earlier; provided that, notwithstanding the foregoing, Nu-Pharm and Benyak shall not be required to produce any such documents within 60 days of the date of this Order.
3. Benyak is to re-attend on discovery, in his personal and corporate capacity, to answer questions that arise from the answers and documents produced as a result of this Order and the resolution and agreement referred to herein; the date by which Benyak shall re-attend will be dealt with in a separate Order.
4. That portion of the plaintiffs’ motion dealing with those questions in categories 1-5 and 9-18 that still need to be adjudicated, and the costs of the entire motion, will be dealt with in a separate Order.
“R. Aronovitch”
____________________________
Prothonotary
SCHEDULE
‘A’
No |
Reqstno |
Discdate |
Pageno |
Question No |
Category |
Ruling |
|
572 |
616 |
04/14/2004 |
0584 |
2499 |
6 (a) |
Ordered to be answered |
|
599 |
596 |
04/14/2004 |
0574 - 0575 |
2444-2446 |
6 (b) |
Ordered to make inquiries of Nu-Pharm |
|
602 |
609 |
04/14/2004 |
580 |
2471-2473 |
6 (b) |
Ordered to make inquiries of Nu-Pharm |
|
605 |
635 |
04/14/2004 |
0604 - 0605 |
2572 |
6 (b) |
Ordered to be answered with respect to knowledge, information and belief of Nu-Pharm only |
|
608 |
1574 |
08/24/2004 |
1337 |
5591-5592 |
6 (b) |
Ordered that it has already been answered |
|
609 |
1575 |
08/24/2004 |
1338 |
5596 |
6 (b) |
Ordered that it has already been answered |
|
610 |
1576 |
08/24/2004 |
1339 |
5597 |
6 (b) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
611 |
1577 |
08/24/2004 |
1339 |
5598 |
6 (b) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
613 |
1589 |
08/24/2004 |
1352 |
5368 |
6 (b) |
Ordered answered but not with respect to discussions with Nu-Pharm’s counsel |
|
614 |
1590 |
08/24/2004 |
1353 |
5642 |
6 (b) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
616 |
1605 |
08/24/2004 |
1365 |
5690 |
6 (b) |
Ordered to make inquiries of Nu-Pharm |
|
618 |
1790 |
08/25/2004 |
1510 |
6065 |
6 (b) |
Ordered answered with respect to dates of retainer only |
|
619 |
1791 |
08/25/2004 |
1511 |
6066 |
6 (b) |
Ordered answered with respect to dates of retainer only |
|
620 |
1793 |
08/25/2004 |
1514 |
6071 |
6 (b) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
621 |
1794 |
08/25/2004 |
1514 |
6072 |
6 (b) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
622 |
1877 |
08/26/2004 |
1602 - 1603 |
6218 |
6 (b) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm answer to their knowledge |
|
623 |
1878 |
08/26/2004 |
1603 |
6219 |
6 (b) |
Ordered answered to Nu-Pharm’s knowledge, information and belief with respect to facts only |
|
624 |
1880 |
08/26/2004 |
1605 |
6222 |
6 (b) |
Ordered answered |
|
627 |
1888 |
08/26/2004 |
1611 |
6233 |
6 (b) |
Ordered answered with respect to Benyak and Nu-Pharm’s knowledge |
|
628 |
1905 |
08/26/2004 |
1624 |
6257 |
6 (b) |
Ordered to answer (d) to Nu-Pharm/Benyak’s knowledge only and (e). Ordered Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer (f), (i), (j). |
|
629 |
1906 |
08/26/2004 |
1625 |
6259 |
6 (b) |
Ordered to answer (b), (c), (d) and also (e) up to “defence and counterclaim”, to Nu-Pharm/Benyak’s knowledge only |
|
630 |
1998 |
08/26/2004 |
1690 |
6408 |
6 (b) |
Ordered to be answered as if the question was ‘Whether Apotex provided Nu-Pharm with the IMS data’. |
|
641 |
203 |
04/13/2004 |
0309 - 0310 |
1379-1380 |
7 (a) |
Ordered answered |
|
643 |
205 |
04/13/2004 |
0310 - 0311 |
1382 |
7 (a) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
657 |
1844 |
08/25/2004 |
1568 |
6160 |
7 (a) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
662 |
1853 |
08/25/2004 |
1575 |
6174 |
7 (a) |
Ordered answered with respect to its contents |
|
663 |
1854 |
08/25/2004 |
1576 |
6176 |
7 (a) |
Ordered to be answered |
|
665 |
1858 |
08/25/2004 |
1579 |
6182 |
7 (a) |
Ordered to be answered |
|
666 |
1859 |
08/25/2004 |
1580 - 1582 |
6184-6185 |
7 (a) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
704 |
430 |
04/14/2004 |
503 |
2129-2132 |
7 (b) |
Ordered answered to Nu-Pharm/Benyak’s knowledge, information and belief only |
|
723 |
272 |
04/13/2004 |
0386 - 0387 |
1702-1706 |
7 (c) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
763 |
319 |
04/13/2004 |
430 |
1854-1855 |
7 (c) |
Ordered answered with respect to Nu-Pharm’s knowledge, but not to make inquiries of Beyer, van Doornik or Culp. |
|
800 |
480 |
04/14/2004 |
0523 - 0524 |
2227-2228 |
7 (c) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
802 |
482 |
04/14/2004 |
524 |
2230-2231 |
7 (c) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
804 |
484 |
04/14/2004 |
0524 - 0525 |
2233-2234 |
7 (c) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
806 |
486 |
04/14/2004 |
526 |
2237-2238 |
7 (c) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
835 |
624 |
04/14/2004 |
0588 - 0589 |
2516 |
8 (a) |
Ordered answered with respect to knowledge, information and belief |
|
844 |
660 |
04/14/2004 |
620 |
2651, 2654 |
8 (a) |
Already answered on the transcript. |
|
845 |
661 |
04/14/2004 |
620 |
2652, 2654 |
8 (a) |
Ordered answered with respect to stating what the government requested |
|
849 |
667 |
04/14/2004 |
626 |
2682-2684 |
8 (a) |
Ordered answered only with respect to Nu-Pharm’s knowledge, information and belief. |
|
851 |
672 |
04/14/2004 |
0628 - 0629 |
2696-2700 |
8 (a) |
Ordered to make inquiries of Nu-Pharm |
|
855 |
677 |
04/14/2004 |
631 |
2722 |
8 (a) |
Ordered to make inquiries of Nu-Pharm. |
|
857 |
679 |
04/14/2004 |
633 |
2729-2733, 2736 |
8 (a) |
Ordered to make inquiries of Nu-Pharm |
|
859 |
681 |
04/14/2004 |
634 |
2729-2733, 2741 |
8 (a) |
Ordered to make inquiries of Nu-Pharm |
|
861 |
683 |
04/14/2004 |
633 |
2734, 2736 |
8 (a) |
Ordered to make inquiries of Nu-Pharm |
|
864 |
687 |
04/14/2004 |
634 |
2734, 2741 |
8 (a) |
Ordered to make inquiries of Nu-Pharm |
|
865 |
692 |
04/14/2004 |
636 |
2749-2751 |
8 (a) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not make inquiries |
|
866 |
693 |
04/14/2004 |
0636 - 0637 |
2752-2753 |
8 (a) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not make inquiries |
|
872 |
716 |
04/15/2004 |
666 |
2857-2858 |
8 (a) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
876 |
737 |
04/15/2004 |
693 |
2980 |
8 (a) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
878 |
788 |
04/15/2004 |
0705 - 0706 |
3040-3045 |
8 (a) |
Ordered answered by making inquiries of Nu-Pharm; add ‘was done’ to question |
|
893 |
643 |
04/14/2004 |
615 |
2623 |
8 (b) |
Ordered answered with respect to Nu-Pharm’s knowledge, information and belief |
|
913 |
739 |
04/15/2004 |
693 |
2982, 2985 |
8 (b) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
948 |
774 |
04/15/2004 |
697 |
2999-3003 |
8 (b) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
953 |
779 |
04/15/2004 |
699 |
3011-3013 |
8 (b) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
|
957 |
797 |
04/15/2004 |
715 |
3094-3095 |
8 (b) |
Ordered answered |
|
958 |
804 |
04/15/2004 |
718 |
3110-3111 |
8 (b) |
Ordered answered |
|
SCHEDULE
‘B’
No |
Reqstno |
Discdate |
Pageno |
Question No |
Category |
Ruling |
|||
568 |
602 |
04/14/2004 |
577 |
2453-2454 |
6 (a) |
Agreed to answer without prejudice under reserve of objection during the hearing of the motion |
|||
580 |
1883 |
08/26/2004 |
1609 |
6227 |
6 (a) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
581 |
1885 |
08/26/2004 |
1610 |
6230 |
6 (a) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
582 |
1886 |
08/26/2004 |
1610 |
6231 |
6 (a) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
583 |
1896 |
08/26/2004 |
1615 |
6242 |
6 (a) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
584 |
1898 |
08/26/2004 |
1616 |
6245 |
6 (a) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
588 |
1907 |
08/26/2004 |
1627 |
6260 |
6 (a) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|||
589 |
1908 |
08/26/2004 |
1627 – 1628 |
6261-6263 |
6 (a) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
590 |
1996 |
08/26/2004 |
1689 – 1690 |
6407 |
6 (a) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|||
591 |
1997 |
08/26/2004 |
1690 |
6408 |
6 (a) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
617 |
1606 |
08/24/2004 |
1367 |
5692 |
6 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|||
626 |
1887 |
08/26/2004 |
1610 - 1611 |
6232 |
6 (b) |
Agreed to answer up to word ‘filing’. Remainder of question is withdrawn without prejudice |
|||
628 |
1905 |
08/26/2004 |
1624 |
6257 |
6 (b) |
Agreed to answer (a) and (b) Withdrawn
by moving parties without prejudice (c) and (h). |
|||
629 |
1906 |
08/26/2004 |
1625 |
6259 |
6 (b) |
Agreed to answer (a) |
|||
642 |
204 |
04/13/2004 |
310 |
1381 |
7 (a) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|||
648 |
308 |
04/13/2004 |
412 |
1788-1789 |
7 (a) |
Agreed to be answered under reserve of objection, without prejudice |
|||
649 |
581 |
04/14/2004 |
565 |
2398-2399 |
7 (a) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
651 |
1826 |
08/25/2004 |
1547 - 1548 |
6127 |
7 (a) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
652 |
1839 |
08/25/2004 |
1563 |
6153 |
7 (a) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|||
653 |
1840 |
08/25/2004 |
1563 - 1564 |
6154 |
7 (a) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
654 |
1841 |
08/25/2004 |
1564 |
6155 |
7 (a) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
655 |
1842 |
08/25/2004 |
1564 |
6156 |
7 (a) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
656 |
1843 |
08/25/2004 |
1564 - 1565 |
6157 |
7 (a) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|||
658 |
1849 |
08/25/2004 |
1572 - 1573 |
6168 |
7 (a) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|||
659 |
1850 |
08/25/2004 |
1573 - 1574 |
6171 |
7 (a) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|||
660 |
1851 |
08/25/2004 |
1575 |
6172 |
7 (a) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|||
661 |
1852 |
08/25/2004 |
1575 |
6173 |
7 (a) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|||
664 |
1857 |
08/25/2004 |
1578 |
6181 |
7 (a) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
671 |
192 |
04/13/2004 |
303 |
1346-1347 |
7 (b) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
672 |
193 |
04/13/2004 |
304 |
1348 |
7 (b) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
673 |
194 |
04/13/2004 |
304 |
1349 |
7 (b) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
676 |
197 |
04/13/2004 |
305 |
1353 |
7 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|||
677 |
198 |
04/13/2004 |
305 |
1354 |
7 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|||
679 |
207 |
04/13/2004 |
314 |
1400-1402 |
7 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|||
682 |
211 |
04/13/2004 |
317 |
1412 |
7 (b) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
683 |
212 |
04/13/2004 |
317 |
1413-1414 |
7 (b) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
688 |
236 |
04/13/2004 |
344 |
1520 |
7 (b) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
691 |
264 |
04/13/2004 |
380 |
1672 |
7 (b) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
701 |
420 |
04/14/2004 |
0499 – 0500 |
2111 - 2113 |
7 (b) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
707 |
434 |
04/14/2004 |
0504 - 0505 |
2139 |
7 (b) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
709 |
474 |
04/14/2004 |
521 |
2211 |
7 (b) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
711 |
533 |
04/14/2004 |
538 |
2291 |
7 (b) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
714 |
564 |
04/14/2004 |
0554 - 0555 |
2342 |
7 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|||
726 |
275 |
04/13/2004 |
0390 - 0391 |
1721-1722 |
7 (c) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|||
727 |
276 |
04/13/2004 |
391 |
1723-1724 |
7 (c) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|||
739 |
288 |
04/13/2004 |
0396-0397 |
1748-1749 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
741 |
290 |
04/13/2004 |
398 |
1753 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
742 |
291 |
04/13/2004 |
0398 - 0399 |
1756 |
7 (c) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|||
743 |
292 |
04/13/2004 |
399 |
1757 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
745 |
294 |
04/13/2004 |
400 |
1760 |
7 (c) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|||
746 |
295 |
04/13/2004 |
400 |
1761 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
748 |
297 |
04/13/2004 |
0407 - 0408 |
1768-1769 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
750 |
299 |
04/13/2004 |
408 |
1771 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
751 |
300 |
04/13/2004 |
409 |
1773 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
753 |
302 |
04/13/2004 |
410 |
1778 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
755 |
304 |
04/13/2004 |
0410 - 0411 |
1781-1782 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
761 |
317 |
04/13/2004 |
427 |
1840 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
780 |
389 |
04/14/2004 |
0484 - 0485 |
2058 |
7 (c) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|||
792 |
447 |
04/14/2004 |
508 |
2158-2160 |
7 (c) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|||
793 |
448 |
04/14/2004 |
0508 - 0509 |
2161-2162 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
795 |
450 |
04/14/2004 |
509 |
2164 |
7 (c) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|||
796 |
451 |
04/14/2004 |
509 |
2164 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
798 |
454 |
04/14/2004 |
0510 - 0511 |
2168-2170 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
839 |
655 |
04/14/2004 |
619 |
2647, 2649 |
8 (a) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
867 |
700 |
04/14/2004 |
641 |
2764, 2769-2770 |
8 (a) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
868 |
701 |
04/14/2004 |
0640 - 0641 |
2766-2767 |
8 (a) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
870 |
703 |
04/14/2004 |
641 |
2766, 2769-2770 |
8 (a) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
877 |
787 |
04/15/2004 |
704 |
3038-3039 |
8 (a) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
880 |
790 |
04/15/2004 |
706 |
3047-3049 |
8 (a) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
881 |
792 |
04/15/2004 |
710 |
3064 |
8 (a) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
882 |
794 |
04/15/2004 |
713 |
3083-3084 |
8 (a) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
883 |
796 |
04/15/2004 |
715 |
3093 |
8 (a) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
884 |
798 |
04/15/2004 |
715 |
3096-3097 |
8 (a) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
885 |
800 |
04/15/2004 |
716 |
3101-3103 |
8 (a) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
886 |
801 |
04/15/2004 |
716 |
3104-3105 |
8 (a) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
887 |
808 |
04/15/2004 |
721 |
3122 |
8 (a) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
890 |
639 |
04/14/2004 |
612 |
2610 |
8 (b) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
962 |
886 |
04/15/2004 |
791 |
3455 |
9 (a) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
965 |
891 |
04/15/2004 |
800 |
3491 |
9 (a) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
967 |
901 |
04/15/2004 |
806 |
3519-3521 |
9 (a) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
968 |
902 |
04/15/2004 |
806 |
3522-3523 |
9 (a) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
971 |
906 |
04/15/2004 |
807 |
3529-3530 |
9 (a) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|||
973 |
1694 |
08/25/2004 |
1454 |
5916 |
9 (a) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
980 |
1812 |
08/25/2004 |
1532 |
6102 |
9 (a) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
981 |
1813 |
08/25/2004 |
1533 |
6103 |
9 (a) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
982 |
1822 |
08/25/2004 |
1544 |
6120 |
9 (a) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
983 |
1823 |
08/25/2004 |
1544 - 1545 |
6121 |
9 (a) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|||
1022 |
892 |
04/15/2004 |
801 |
3494 |
9 (b) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
1028 |
900 |
04/15/2004 |
805 |
3515-3517 |
9 (b) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
1032 |
1695 |
08/25/2004 |
1454 |
5917 |
9 (b) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
1037 |
229 |
04/13/2004 |
341 |
1503-1506 |
10 (a) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|||
1038 |
809 |
04/15/2004 |
0722-0723 |
3132-3133 |
10 (a) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
1039 |
810 |
04/15/2004 |
0723 |
3134 |
10 (a) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
1043 |
1945 |
08/26/2004 |
1654 |
6324 |
10 (a) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|||
1046 |
1956 |
08/26/2004 |
1663 |
6349 |
10 (a) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
1047 |
1957 |
08/26/2004 |
1663 – 1664 |
6350 |
10 (a) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
1049 |
1959 |
08/26/2004 |
1665 |
6357 |
10 (a) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
1051 |
1964 |
08/26/2004 |
1667 - 1668 |
6363 |
10 (a) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|||
1052 |
1965 |
08/26/2004 |
1667- 1668 |
6364 |
10 (a) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
1056 |
1972 |
08/26/2004 |
1671 |
6373 |
10 (a) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice, by providing all relevant documents only |
|||
1057 |
1973 |
08/26/2004 |
1671 - 1672 |
6374 |
10 (a) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice, by providing all relevant documents only |
|||
1058 |
1974 |
08/26/2004 |
1672 |
6375 |
10 (a) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice, by providing all relevant documents only |
|||
1059 |
1975 |
08/26/2004 |
1672 - 1673 |
6376-6377 |
10 (a) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice, by providing all relevant documents only |
|||
1070 |
1939 |
08/26/2004 |
1652 |
6315-6316 |
10 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|||
1071 |
1940 |
08/26/2004 |
1652 - 1653 |
6317 |
10 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|||
1072 |
1941 |
08/26/2004 |
1653 |
6318 |
10 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|||
1073 |
1942 |
08/26/2004 |
1653 |
6319 |
10 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|||
1076 |
1949 |
1656 |
6330 |
10 (b) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
||||
1079 |
1960 |
08/26/2004 |
1665 - 1666 |
6355-6356 |
10 (b) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|||
1492 |
1504 |
06/11/2004 |
1273 |
5403-5405 |
15 |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|||
1493 |
1570 |
08/24/2004 |
1331 |
5563 |
15 |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|||
SCHEDULE
‘C’
No |
Reqstno |
Discdate |
Pageno |
Question No |
Category |
Ruling |
|
488 |
2054 |
08/26/2004 |
1755-1756 |
6567 |
5 (a) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|
574 |
1579 |
08/24/2004 |
1343 |
5609 |
6 (a) |
Agreed to answer under reserve of objection without prejudice |
|
601 |
608 |
04/14/2004 |
0580 |
2471-2473 |
6 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|
612 |
1578 |
08/24/2004 |
1342-1343 |
5608 |
6 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|
615 |
1591 |
08/24/2004 |
1354 |
5647 |
6 (b) |
Agreed to be answered on June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection without prejudice |
|
625 |
1882 |
08/26/2004 |
1608 |
6226 |
6 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|
635 |
173 |
04/13/2004 |
290 |
1271 |
7 (a) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|
638 |
200 |
04/13/2004 |
0307 |
1363 |
7 (a) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|
639 |
0201 |
04/13/2004 |
0307 |
1364 |
7 (a) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|
640 |
202 |
04/13/2004 |
0307 |
1365 |
7 (a) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|
668 |
177 |
04/13/2004 |
295 |
1301 |
7 (b) |
Agreed to be answered under reserve of objection without prejudice |
|
0721 |
195 |
04/13/2004 |
304 |
1350 |
7 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|
686 |
215 |
04/13/2004 |
0319 - 0320 |
1424-1425 |
7 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|
687 |
227 |
04/13/2004 |
337 |
1484-1486 |
7 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|
690 |
245 |
04/13/2004 |
364 |
1611-1612 |
7 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|
701 |
420 |
04/14/2004 |
0499 – 0500 |
2111 – 2113 |
7 (b) |
Agreed to be answered under reserve of objection without prejudice |
|
713 |
535 |
04/14/2004 |
539 |
2294 |
7 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|
715 |
565 |
04/14/2004 |
555 |
2343-2344 |
7 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|
720 |
1810 |
08/25/2004 |
1530 - 1531 |
6100 |
7 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice as a result of new productions delivered by the respondents on June 8, 2006. |
|
725 |
274 |
04/13/2004 |
0389 |
1715 |
7 (c) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|
730 |
279 |
04/13/2004 |
0392 |
1728-1729 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered on June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection without prejudice |
|
734 |
283 |
04/13/2004 |
394 |
1739 |
7 (c) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|
735 |
284 |
04/13/2004 |
0394 |
1740 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered on June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection without prejudice |
|
736 |
285 |
04/13/2004 |
0394 |
1741-1742 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered on June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection without prejudice |
|
747 |
296 |
04/13/2004 |
0404 |
1763 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered on June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection without prejudice |
|
759 |
315 |
04/13/2004 |
0416-0418 |
1806-1810 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered on June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection without prejudice |
|
781 |
390 |
04/14/2004 |
485 |
2059 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to answer under reserve of objection without prejudice |
|
784 |
401 |
04/14/2004 |
0491 - 0492 |
2083 |
7 (c) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|
785 |
402 |
04/14/2004 |
0492 - 0493 |
2084 |
7 (c) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|
790 |
435 |
04/14/2004 |
505 |
2140 – 2141 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered without prejudice |
|
809 |
490 |
04/14/2004 |
0527-0531 |
2246-2263 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered on June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection without prejudice |
|
810 |
491 |
04/14/2004 |
0527 – 0531 |
2247, 2248 – 2263 |
7 (c) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|
811 |
492 |
04/14/2004 |
0527 – 0531 |
2249 – 2263 |
7 (c) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|
812 |
493 |
04/14/2004 |
0527 – 0531 |
2251 – 2263 |
7 (c) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|
813 |
494 |
04/14/2004 |
0527- 0531 |
2252, 2263 |
7 (c) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|
814 |
495 |
04/14/2004 |
0527-0531 |
2253-2263 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered on June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection without prejudice |
|
815 |
496 |
04/14/2004 |
0527-0531 |
2254-2257, 2263 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered on June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection without prejudice |
|
816 |
497 |
04/14/2004 |
0527-0531 |
2258, 2259, 2263 |
7 (c) |
Agreed to be answered on June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection without prejudice |
|
841 |
657 |
04/14/2004 |
0619 |
2648, 2649 |
8 (a) |
Agreed to be answered on June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection without prejudice |
|
847 |
663 |
04/14/2004 |
620 |
2653, 2654 |
8 (a) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice. |
|
879 |
789 |
04/15/2004 |
706 |
3046 |
8 (a) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|
969 |
903 |
04/15/2004 |
807 |
3524-3525 |
9 (a) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|
972 |
1693 |
08/25/2004 |
1453 |
5915 |
9 (a) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|
975 |
1703 |
08/25/2004 |
1456-1457 |
5926 |
9 (a) |
Agreed to be answered on June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection without prejudice |
|
985 |
1825 |
08/25/2004 |
1546 |
6124 |
9 (a) |
Agreed to be answered on June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection without prejudice |
|
1591 |
2082 |
08/26/2004 |
1776 |
6602 |
19 |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|
1592 |
2083 |
08/26/2004 |
1776 |
6603 |
19 |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
|
APPENDIX III
Date: 20061124
Court File No.: T-753-99
Ottawa, Ontario, November 24, 2006
PRESENT: Madam Prothonotary Roza Aronovitch
B E T W E E N:
MERCK & CO., INC. and MERCK FROSST CANADA & CO.
Plaintiffs
- and -
NU-PHARM INC., BERNARD SHERMAN
and RICHARD BENYAK
Defendants
ORDER
UPON motion by the plaintiffs for:
1. An order compelling the defendants Nu-Pharm Inc. (“Nu-Pharm”) and Richard Benyak (“Benyak”) to answer the undertakings given on the examination for discovery of Benyak, in his corporate and individual capacity, held on April 6, 13, 14, 15 and 16, June 11, August, 24, 25, and 26, 2004 and March 4, 2005;
2. An order compelling Nu-Pharm and Benyak to answer discovery questions refused on the examination for discovery of Benyak, in his personal and corporate capacity, held on April 6, 13, 14, 15 and 16, June 11, August 24, 25 and 26, 2004 and March 4, 2005;
3. An order compelling Nu-Pharm and Benyak to answer discovery questions asked by way of written interrogatory;
4. An order compelling Nu-Pharm and Benyak to re-attend on discovery to answer further questions, including questions arising out of the answers provided and documents produced in respect of paragraphs 1-3 above;
5. An order granting the plaintiffs their costs of this motion; and
6. Such further and other relief as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court deem just;
AND UPON this Court directing that a subset of the questions listed in the plaintiffs’ categorized charts at Tab 30 of the Moving Parties' Motion Record be dealt with first (the “Making Inquiries Questions”), said Making Inquiries Questions having been ruled upon in the Making Inquiries Order of August 9, 2006 (“MIO”);
AND UPON the Court having informed the parties of its general decision with respect to categories 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of said charts and upon the Court and the parties having then dealt with certain specific questions in those categories, said questions having been ruled upon in the Certain Discovery Questions Order of August 9, 2006 (“CDQO”);
AND UPON the Parties having informed the Court that they had resolved certain of the questions remaining outstanding on this motion, as indicated in Schedule “C” hereto;
AND UPON the parties having agreed that questions listed in Schedule “D” hereto are undertakings, are outstanding, and will be answered by Nu-Pharm and Benyak;
AND UPON the Court having informed the parties of its decisions as set out in paragraph 1 below and directed the parties to attempt to resolve others of said remaining questions, subject to appeal of the paragraph 1 decision;
AND UPON the Parties having informed the Court thereafter that, given the Court’s direction and decisions set out in paragraph 1 below, the MIO and the CDQO, they had reached an agreement resolving certain of said other outstanding questions as indicated in Schedule “B” hereto, which agreement includes the terms that such agreement is without prejudice to any party’s right to appeal and that if any of the principles set out in paragraph 1 of this Order, the MIO or the CDQO is finally overturned after appeal, then the agreement with respect to any Schedule “B” questions affected by the successful appeal will be amended to correspond therewith;
AND UPON reviewing the Moving Parties’ Motion Record and the responding motion record of Benyak and Nu-Pharm, and hearing the submissions of their counsel on October 18 – 20, 2006, on certain unresolved remaining questions:
THIS COURT ORDERS that:
5. (a) Nu-Pharm and Benyak will answer the questions set out in Schedule “A” hereto; they must provide their knowledge, information and belief, having made the inquiries contemplated by Rule 241;
(b) Question 281 will be stood down and not dealt with by the parties or the Court until an answer to question 280 is provided;
(c) Question 1579(f) will be stood down and not dealt with by the parties or the Court until Benyak answers (e); and
(d) At this time Nu-Pharm and Benyak need make no inquiries of, nor any requests for documents from, Beyger, Culp, Van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium, or Saban beyond any previously ordered on this motion and any previously undertaken to be made; the questions listed in Schedule “E” hereto, to the extent they involve inquiries of such persons, will be stood down and not dealt with by the parties or the Court until the results of the inquiries and requests previously ordered are known.
6. Unless ordered otherwise in respect of any particular document or question in the MIO or the CDQO, Nu-Pharm and Benyak shall produce to the plaintiffs:
(a) copies of all documents ordered, agreed or undertaken to be produced; and
(b) written answers to all questions ordered, agreed or undertaken to be answered;
as reflected in this Order, the MIO and the CDQO, by December 20, 2006; except that the documents to be produced in answer to questions 1533, 1564 and 1576, to the extent they differ from those to be produced in answer to the other Category 18 questions ordered answered, need not be produced until January 20, 2007.
7. Benyak is to re-attend on discovery, in his personal and corporate capacity, to answer questions that arise from the answers and documents produced as a result of this Order, and the resolutions and agreements referred to herein; the date by which Benyak shall re-attend will be dealt with in a separate Order.
8. That portion of the plaintiffs’ motion that still needs to be adjudicated, and the costs of the motion (other than as dealt with in the following paragraph), will be dealt with in a separate Order.
9. The plaintiffs are awarded the costs of the hearing of this motion on October 18-20, 2006, at the high end of Column V of Tariff B, for two counsel, including disbursements, in any event of the cause; said costs include a disbursement of $2000, which represents the plaintiffs’ cost of photocopying for this motion pro-rated to those three days; said costs are payable by Nu-Pharm and Benyak, but not forthwith.
“R. Aronovitch”
Prothonotary
Court File No. T-753-99
This is Schedule “A” to the Order of November 24, 2006
No |
Reqstno |
Discdate |
Pageno |
Questno |
Category |
Disposition |
73 |
333 |
04/13/2004 |
439 |
1894 - 1895 |
2 (a) |
Ordered to advise where in the transcript it has been answered |
76 |
374 |
04/14/2004 |
0477 - 0478 |
2024 - 2025 |
2 (a) |
Ordered answered |
88 |
696 |
04/142004 |
0639 – 0640 |
276 |
2 (a) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
98 |
1133 |
04/16/2004 |
1038 - 1039 |
4542 |
2 (a) |
Ordered answered |
105 |
1979 |
08/26/2004 |
1676 |
6382 |
2 (a) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
106 |
1980 |
08/26/2004 |
1677 |
6383 |
2 (a) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
107 |
1981 |
08/26/2004 |
1677 |
6384 |
2 (a) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
170 |
2040 |
08/26/2004 |
1731 |
6514 |
2 (b) |
Ordered answered |
174 |
2046 |
08/26/2004 |
1736 - 1737 |
6533 |
2 (b) |
Ordered answered |
210 |
727 |
04/15/2004 |
684 |
2937-2938 |
3 (a) |
Ordered answered |
213 |
914 |
04/15/2004 |
812 |
3549-3552 |
3 (a) |
Ordered answered |
216 |
981 |
04/16/2004 |
923 |
4061 |
3 (a) |
Ordered answered Nu-Pharm records only |
218 |
1028 |
04/16/2004 |
945 |
4173 |
3 (a) |
Ordered answered |
220 |
1033 |
04/16/2004 |
950 |
4184 |
3 (a) |
Ordered answered |
221 |
1034 |
04/16/2004 |
0950 - 0951 |
4185 |
3 (a) |
Ordered answered |
222 |
1035 |
04/16/2004 |
951 |
4186 |
3 (a) |
Ordered answered |
266 |
1369 |
06/11/2004 |
1198 |
5121 |
3 (a) |
Ordered answered |
271 |
1517 |
06/11/2004 |
1282 |
5424 |
3 (a) |
Ordered answered |
273 |
1688 |
08/25/2004 |
1449 - 1450 |
5908 |
3 (a) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
277 |
1789 |
08/25/2004 |
1509 - 1510 |
6063 |
3 (a) |
Ordered answered, subject to a proper claim for privilege |
278 |
1795 |
08/25/2004 |
1514 |
6073 |
3 (a) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
279 |
1797 |
08/25/2004 |
1516 |
6076 |
3 (a) 20 (h) 20 (j) |
(i) – (iii) Ordered answered, no privilege claim can be made in response to these questions (iv) Ordered answered, subject to a proper claim for privilege |
280 |
1799 |
08/25/2004 |
1516 - 1518 |
6078 |
3 (a) |
Ordered answered, subject to a proper claim for privilege |
284 |
1815 |
08/25/2004 |
1534 - 1535 |
6105 |
3 (a) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
285 |
1816 |
08/25/2004 |
1535 |
6106 |
3 (a) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
451 |
844 |
04/15/2004 |
765 |
3325 |
4 |
Ordered answered |
453 |
884 |
04/15/2004 |
788 |
3441 |
4 |
Ordered answered |
464 |
1700 |
08/25/2004 |
1455 – 1456 |
5922 |
4 20 (h) |
Ordered answered, no privilege claim can be made in response to this question |
466 |
1984 |
08/26/2004 |
1679 |
6387 |
4 |
Ordered answered |
1317 |
1616 |
08/24/2004 |
1373 |
5702 |
13 (b) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
1319 |
1619 |
08/24/2004 |
1374 |
5708 |
13 (b) |
Ordered that copies of documents that demonstrate receipt of funds are to be provided; otherwise Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
1320 |
1620 |
08/24/2004 |
1375 |
5709 |
13 (b) |
Ordered answered |
1321 |
1621 |
08/24/2004 |
1375 |
5710 - 5712 |
13 (b) |
Ordered answered |
1325 |
1626 |
08/24/2004 |
1381 |
5730 |
13 (b) |
Ordered answered |
1328 |
1630 |
08/24/2004 |
1388 |
5755 |
13 (b) |
Ordered answered |
1331 |
1634 |
08/24/2004 |
1393 |
5769 |
13 (b) |
Ordered answered once the original document has been inspected [see No. 1328] |
1332 |
1636 |
08/24/2004 |
1396 |
5781 - 5782 |
13 (b) |
Ordered answered |
1341 |
1646 |
08/24/2004 |
1409 |
5810 |
13 (b) |
Ordered answered |
1348 |
1653 |
08/24/2004 |
1413 |
5819 |
13 (b) |
Ordered answered |
1356 |
1661 |
08/24/2004 |
1416 |
5832 |
13 (b) |
Ordered answered |
1365 |
1671 |
08/24/2004 |
1426 - 1427 |
5866 |
13 (b) |
Ordered answered, subject to a proper claim for privilege |
1371 |
1677 |
08/25/2004 |
1438 |
5884 |
13 (b) |
Ordered answered |
1373 |
1679 |
08/25/2004 |
1441 |
5890 |
13 (b) |
Ordered answered |
1392 |
11 |
04/06/2004 |
62 |
232 |
13 (c) |
Ordered answered from 1992 onwards |
1393 |
12 |
04/06/2004 |
63 |
235 |
13 (c) |
Ordered answered from 1992 onwards |
1394 |
13 |
04/06/2004 |
63 |
236 |
13 (c) |
Ordered answered from 1992 onwards |
1395 |
15 |
04/06/2004 |
64 |
241 |
13 (c) |
Ordered answered from 1992 to April 1, 1996 |
1396 |
16 |
04/06/2004 |
64 |
242 |
13 (c) |
Ordered answered from 1992 to April 1, 1996 |
1397 |
17 |
04/06/2004 |
64 |
0243 - 0244 |
13 (c) |
Ordered answered from 1992 to April 1, 1996 |
1398 |
18 |
04/06/2004 |
64 |
245 |
13 (c) |
Ordered answered from 1992 to April 1, 1996 |
1399 |
19 |
04/06/2004 |
65 |
246 |
13 (c) |
Ordered answered from 1992 to April 1, 1996 |
1401 |
24 |
04/06/2004 |
68 |
257 |
13 (c) |
Ordered answered – extend undertaking to 2000 |
1403 |
61 |
04/06/2004 |
109 |
443 |
13 (c) |
Ordered answered from 1992 to present |
1410 |
1525 |
08/23/2004 |
1298 |
5463 |
13 (c) |
Ordered answered |
1411 |
1526 |
08/23/2004 |
1300 |
5464 |
13 (c) |
Ordered answered |
1414 |
1530 |
08/23/2004 |
1301 |
5468 |
13 (c) |
First part withdrawn without prejudice; Second part ordered answered |
1433 |
1668 |
08/24/2004 |
1419 |
5842 |
13 (c) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
1449 |
1762 |
08/25/2004 |
1484 - 1485 |
6010 |
13 (b) |
Category 13(b): Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer as encompassed within No. 1450
Question duplicated in category 13(c) |
1450 |
1763 |
08/25/2004 |
1485 - 1486 |
6011 |
13 (b) |
Category 13(b): Ordered answered with respect to computer reports
Question duplicated in category 13(c) |
1451 |
1764 |
08/25/2004 |
1486 |
6012 |
13 (b) |
Category 13(b): Ordered answered with respect to computer reports
Question duplicated in category 13(c) |
1452 |
1765 |
08/25/2004 |
1486 |
6013 |
13 (b) |
Category 13(b): Ordered answered with respect to computer reports that show direct costs
Question duplicated in category 13(c) |
1453 |
1767 |
08/25/2004 |
1487 |
6016 |
13 (b) |
Category 13(b): Ordered answered with respect to computer reports itemizing summaries of all receipts and payments
Question duplicated in category 13(c) |
1454 |
1768 |
08/25/2004 |
1487 |
6017 |
13 (b) |
Category 13(b): Ordered answered with respect to computer reports itemizing summaries
Question duplicated in category 13(c) |
1455 |
1770 |
08/25/2004 |
1488 |
6019 |
13 (b) |
Category 13(b): Ordered answered with respect to computer reports itemizing summaries
Question duplicated in category 13(c) |
1458 |
1873 |
08/26/2004 |
1598 |
6210 |
13 (c) |
Ordered answered. This does not stand as a precedent for, without hearing argument, having questions answered with respect to other proceedings”. |
1462 |
2065 |
08/26/2004 |
1760 |
6579 |
13 (c) |
Ordered answered |
1463 |
2073 |
08/26/2004 |
1770 |
6590 |
4 5 (b) 6 (b) 10 (b) 13 (c) 20 (h) |
Category 4: Ordered answered, subject to a proper claim for privilege
Question duplicated in categories 5(b), 6(b), 10(b), 13(c), 20(h) |
1464 |
2074 |
08/26/2004 |
1771 – 1772 |
6591 |
4 5 (b) 6 (b) 10 (b) 13 (c) 20 (h) |
Category
4: Ordered answered Question duplicated in categories 5(b), 6(b), 10(b), 13(c), 20(h) |
1465 |
2075 |
08/26/2004 |
1771 – 1772 |
6591 |
4 5 (b) 6 (b) 10 (b) 13 (c) 20 (h) |
Category 4: Up to the words “the cost of providing the services or assistance” the question is ordered answered. No privilege claim can be made in response to this part of the question. With respect to the remainder of the question which seeks “evidence of the invoices and payment of the invoices”, these documents must be produced, subject to a proper claim for privilege
Question duplicated in categories 5(b), 6(b), 10(b), 13(c), 20(h) |
1466 |
2078 |
08/26/2004 |
1774 |
6596 – 6597 |
4 5 (b) 6 (b) 8 (b) 9 (b) 13 (c) |
Category 4: First part, down to “for the assistance”, ordered answered, subject to a proper claim for privilege concerning payment for legal services, if any.
Question duplicated in categories 5(b), 6(b), 10(b), 13(c), 20(h) |
1478 |
1711 |
08/25/2004 |
1459 |
5936 |
13 (d) |
Ordered answered |
1481 |
1752 |
08/25/2004 |
1480 |
5997 |
13 (e) |
Ordered answered from September 30, 1998 to the present |
1496 |
95 |
04/06/2004 |
160 |
719 |
16 (b) |
Ordered answered |
1497 |
96 |
04/06/2004 |
160 |
720 |
16 (b) |
Ordered answered |
1498 |
97 |
04/06/2004 |
163 |
0737 - 0738 |
16 (b) |
Ordered answered |
1502 |
437 |
04/14/2004 |
505 |
2143 - 2144 |
17 |
Ordered answered |
1528 |
1890 |
08/26/2004 |
1611 - 1612 |
6236 |
18 (a) |
Ordered answered |
1529 |
1891 |
08/26/2004 |
1612 |
6237 |
18 (a) |
Ordered answered |
1530 |
1892 |
08/26/2004 |
1612 |
6238 |
18 (a) |
Ordered answered |
1531 |
1893 |
08/26/2004 |
1612 |
6238 |
18 (a) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
1532 |
1894 |
08/26/2004 |
1612 |
6239 |
18 (a) |
Ordered answered |
1533 |
1895 |
08/26/2004 |
1613 - 1615 |
6240 |
18 (a) |
Ordered answered. Privileged notes can be expurgated from the documents produced. The only documents not to be produced are those where Nu-Pharm is bound to a third party by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order. Where a document is not produced as being caught by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order to a third party, Nu-Pharm is to stipulate that the document will not be produced for that reason, and specify what is the nature of that Order or undertaking. The December 20, 2006 production deadline does not apply. |
1544 |
1687 |
08/25/2004 |
1449 |
5907 |
18 (b) |
Ordered answered |
1549 |
1779 |
08/25/2004 |
1494 - 1495 |
6037 - 6039 |
18 (c) |
Ordered answered with respect to Nu-Pharm and its counsel |
1564 |
1146 |
04/16/2004 |
1051 |
4570 |
18 (d) |
Ordered answered. Privileged notes can be expurgated from the documents produced. The only documents not to be produced are those where Nu-Pharm is bound to a third party by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order. Where a document is not produced as being caught by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order to a third party, Nu-Pharm is to stipulate that the document will not be produced for that reason, and specify what is the nature of that Order or undertaking. The December 20, 2006 production deadline does not apply. With respect to Nu-Pharm’s counsel, ordered answered only in its capacity as Nu-Pharm’s counsel. With respect to documents in possession of Nu-Pharm’s counsel in its capacity as counsel for another client, the parties are to provide written submissions and this portion of the question will be ruled upon thereafter. The Plaintiffs’ submissions (5 page maximum) to be submitted by October 27, 2006. The Defendants’ submissions (5 page maximum) to be submitted by a date to be determined by the Court. |
1573 |
1830 |
08/25/2004 |
1549 - 1550 |
6132 - 6133 |
18 (d) |
Ordered that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer |
1574 |
1831 |
08/25/2004 |
1551 |
6134 |
18 (d) |
Ordered answered. The only documents not to be produced are those where Nu-Pharm is bound to a third party by an implied undertaking or a Confidentiality Order. Where a document is not produced as being caught by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order to a third party, Nu-Pharm is to stipulate that the document will not be produced for that reason, and specify what is the nature of that Order or undertaking. |
1576 |
1834 |
08/25/2004 |
1556 |
6139 |
18 (d) |
Ordered answered with respect to Exhibit A to Benyak’s’s Examination for Discovery. Privileged notes can be expurgated from the documents produced. The only documents not to be produced are those where Nu-Pharm is bound to a third party by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order. Where a document is not produced as being caught by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order to a third party, Nu-Pharm is to stipulate that the document will not be produced for that reason, and specify what is the nature of that Order or undertaking. The December 20, 2006 production deadline does not apply. With respect to documents in possession of Nu-Pharm’s counsel in its capacity as counsel for another client, the parties are to provide written submissions and this portion of the question will be ruled upon thereafter. The Plaintiffs’ submissions (5 page maximum) to be submitted by October 27, 2006. The Defendants’ submissions (5 page maximum) to be submitted by a date to be determined by the Court. |
1578 |
1856 |
08/25/2004 |
1577 |
6178 |
18 (d) |
Ordered answered |
1579 |
1861 |
08/25/2004 |
1582 - 1583 |
6187 |
18 (d) |
(a) to
(e): Ordered answered, subject to a proper claim for privilege. |
1580 |
1862 |
08/25/2004 |
1583 |
6188 |
18 (d) |
Ordered answered, subject to a proper claim for privilege; facts only |
1581 |
1863 |
08/25/2004 |
1583 |
6190 |
18 (d) |
Ordered answered, subject to a proper claim for privilege; facts only |
1582 |
1864 |
08/25/2004 |
1584 |
6191 |
18 (d) |
Ordered answered |
1587 |
1927 |
08/26/2004 |
1642 |
6298 |
18 (d) |
Ordered answered, subject to a proper claim for privilege and if litigation privilege is claimed, Nu-Pharm/Benyak shall specifically assert that privilege was not waived by providing it to Sherman |
Court File No. T-753-99
This is Schedule “B” to the Order of November 24, 2006
No |
Reqstno |
Discdate |
Pageno |
Questno |
Category |
Disposition |
16 |
920 |
04/15/2004 |
824 |
3591-3592 |
1 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
17 |
921 |
04/15/2004 |
824 |
3593-3594 |
1 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
19 |
1968 |
08/26/2004 |
1669 |
6367 |
1 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
20 |
2079 |
08/26/2004 |
1775 |
6598 – 6599 |
1 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
30 |
309 |
04/13/2004 |
413 |
1790 |
1 (c) |
Agreed to answer |
31 |
310 |
04/13/2004 |
413 |
1792 |
1 (c) |
Agreed to answer |
34 |
443 |
04/14/2004 |
507 |
2152 |
1 (c) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
See also Schedule E |
35 |
444 |
04/14/2004 |
507 |
2153 |
1 (c) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
See also Schedule E |
36 |
462 |
04/14/2004 |
517 |
2191 – 2192 |
1 (c) |
Agreed to answer |
41 |
489 |
04/14/2004 |
527 |
2243 |
1 (c) |
Agreed to answer |
46 |
543 |
04/14/2004 |
0543 - 0544 |
2307 – 2308 |
1 (c) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
47 |
544 |
04/14/2004 |
545 |
2309 – 2310 |
1 (c) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
See also Schedule E |
48 |
545 |
04/14/2004 |
0545 - 0546 |
2311 |
1 (c) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
49 |
546 |
04/14/2004 |
546 |
2312 |
1 (c) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban.
See also Schedule E |
51 |
570 |
04/14/2004 |
559 |
2366 |
1 (c) |
Agreed to answer |
52 |
571 |
04/14/2004 |
559 |
2368 |
1 (c) |
Agreed to answer |
53 |
572 |
04/14/2004 |
559 |
2369 |
1 (c) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
54 |
573 |
04/14/2004 |
0559 - 0560 |
2370 |
1 (c) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban.
See also Schedule E |
55 |
574 |
04/14/2004 |
560 |
2371 |
1 (c) |
Agreed to answer |
56 |
575 |
04/14/2004 |
560 |
2372 |
1 (c) |
Agreed to answer |
57 |
642 |
04/14/2004 |
614 |
2620 – 2621 |
1 (c) |
Will produce if Nu-Pharm has the document; will not ask Novex. |
71 |
247 |
04/13/2004 |
365 |
1615 |
2 (a) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
72 |
265 |
04/13/2004 |
380 |
1673 |
2 (a) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
77 |
375 |
04/14/2004 |
478 |
2026 – 2027 |
2 (a) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Molnar’s knowledge, information and belief |
79 |
377 |
04/14/2004 |
0478 - 0479 |
2029 |
2 (a) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
80 |
400 |
04/14/2004 |
491 |
2080 – 0281 |
2 (a) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban See also Schedule E |
84 |
455 |
04/14/2004 |
0510 - 0511 |
2168 – 2170 |
2 (a) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
85 |
457 |
04/14/2004 |
0513 - 0514 |
2182 |
2 (a) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
See also Schedule E |
86 |
458 |
04/14/2004 |
514 |
2183 |
2 (a) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
See also Schedule E |
89 |
783 |
04/15/2004 |
702 |
3029-3030 |
2 (a) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
See also Schedule E |
91 |
839 |
04/15/2004 |
0760-0761 |
3310-3312 |
2 (a) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
See also Schedule E |
92 |
847 |
04/15/2004 |
0768-0769 |
3334-3336 |
2 (a) |
Nu-Pharm
and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information
and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were
addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger,
Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium
and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van
Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or
Saban |
93 |
893 |
04/15/2004 |
802 |
3502 |
2 (a) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
|
94 |
907 |
04/15/2004 |
808 |
3531 |
2 (a) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
|
95 |
913 |
04/15/2004 |
811 |
3547 |
2 (a) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
|
96 |
1102 |
04/16/2004 |
1017 |
4452 |
2 (a) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
See also Schedule E |
97 |
1114 |
04/16/2004 |
1032 |
4510-4511 |
2 (a) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
|
99 |
1511 |
06/11/2004 |
1277 |
5413 |
2 (a) |
Will ask Trillium or explain 'answered' |
101 |
1523 |
06/11/2004 |
1292 |
5458 – 5460 |
2 (a) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
102 |
1930 |
08/26/2004 |
1644 |
6301 |
2 (a) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
103 |
1931 |
08/26/2004 |
1645 - 1646 |
6301 |
2 (a) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
108 |
1988 |
08/26/2004 |
1683 - 1684 |
6393 – 6394 |
2 (a) |
Benyak agrees to answer to Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
113 |
138 |
04/13/2004 |
254 |
1121 |
2 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
114 |
139 |
04/13/2004 |
254 |
1122 |
2 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
See also Schedule E |
115 |
158 |
04/13/2004 |
274 |
1204 |
2 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
See also Schedule E |
116 |
270 |
04/13/2004 |
385 |
1695 – 1696 |
2 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
|
118 |
392 |
04/14/2004 |
486 |
2062 |
2 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
119 |
393 |
04/14/2004 |
486 |
2063 |
2 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
120 |
394 |
04/14/2004 |
487 |
2064 |
2 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
121 |
395 |
04/14/2004 |
487 |
2065 |
2 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
122 |
396 |
04/14/2004 |
488 |
2066 |
2 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
123 |
397 |
04/14/2004 |
488 |
2067 |
2 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
124 |
404 |
04/14/2004 |
493 |
2086 – 2087 |
2 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
125 |
408 |
04/14/2004 |
494 |
2089 - |
2 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
129 |
417 |
04/14/2004 |
498 |
2107 |
2 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
See also Schedule E |
131 |
419 |
04/14/2004 |
0498 - 0499 |
2108 – 2110 |
2 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
133 |
425 |
04/14/2004 |
501 |
2119 |
2 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban; Stand down with respect to Trillium; See Schedule “E” |
134 |
445 |
04/14/2004 |
0507 - 0508 |
2154 – 2156 |
2 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
135 |
446 |
04/14/2004 |
508 |
2157 |
2 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
See also Schedule E |
136 |
459 |
04/14/2004 |
515 |
2185 |
2 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
137 |
461 |
04/14/2004 |
517 |
2190 |
2 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
138 |
467 |
04/14/2004 |
518 |
2196 |
2 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
144 |
478 |
04/14/2004 |
522 |
2217 |
2 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
See also Schedule E |
146 |
505 |
04/14/2004 |
532 |
2267 – 2268 |
2 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
See also Schedule E |
147 |
506 |
04/14/2004 |
532 |
2269 |
2 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
See also Schedule E |
148 |
507 |
04/14/2004 |
533 |
2270 |
2 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
See also Schedule E |
149 |
508 |
04/14/2004 |
533 |
2271 |
2 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
See also Schedule E |
152 |
784 |
04/15/2004 |
702 |
3032-3033 |
2 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
153 |
785 |
04/15/2004 |
702 |
3035 |
2 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
154 |
786 |
04/15/2004 |
703 |
3036 |
2 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
155 |
1488 |
06/11/2004 |
1262 |
5366 – 5367 |
2 (b) |
Nu-Pharm
and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information
and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were
addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger,
Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium
and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van
Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or
Saban |
156 |
1489 |
06/11/2004 |
1262 |
5368 |
2 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
See also Schedule E |
157 |
1490 |
06/11/2004 |
1263 |
5369 – 5370 |
2 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
See also Schedule E |
158 |
1491 |
06/11/2004 |
1263 |
5371 |
2 (b) |
Nu-Pharm
and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information
and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were
addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger,
Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium
and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van
Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or
Saban
See also Schedule E |
159 |
1492 |
06/11/2004 |
1263 - 1264 |
5372 |
2 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
164 |
2002 |
08/26/2004 |
1693 |
6415 |
2 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
165 |
2004 |
08/26/2004 |
1695 |
6420 |
2 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
166 |
2006 |
08/26/2004 |
1696 |
6424 – 6425 |
2 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
167 |
2036 |
08/26/2004 |
1728 |
6504 |
2 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban: a, b, d, e; Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice: c |
168 |
2037 |
08/26/2004 |
1729 |
6506 |
2 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
169 |
2038 |
08/26/2004 |
1729 - 1730 |
6507 |
2 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
171 |
2041 |
08/26/2004 |
1731 - 1732 |
6515 |
2 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
172 |
2042 |
08/26/2004 |
1732 |
6516 – 6517 |
2 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
176 |
548 |
04/14/2004 |
547 |
2314 |
2 (c) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
177 |
549 |
04/14/2004 |
547 |
2315 |
2 (c) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
178 |
550 |
04/14/2004 |
0547 - 0548 |
2316 |
2 (c) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
179 |
551 |
04/14/2004 |
548 |
2317 |
2 (c) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
180 |
555 |
04/14/2004 |
549 |
2321 |
2 (c) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
181 |
560 |
04/14/2004 |
551 |
2327 |
2 (c) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
182 |
561 |
04/14/2004 |
551 |
2328 |
2 (c) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
183 |
1399 |
06/11/2004 |
1216 |
5197 |
2 (c) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
184 |
1487 |
06/11/2004 |
1261 - 1262 |
5363 – 5365 |
2 (c) |
Nu-Pharm
and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information
and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were
addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger,
Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium
and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van
Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or
Saban |
189 |
216 |
04/13/2004 |
320 |
1426 – 1427 |
2 (d) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
194 |
268 |
04/13/2004 |
383 |
1685 |
2 (d) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
195 |
511 |
04/14/2004 |
536 |
2276 – 2277 |
2 (d) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
|
196 |
512 |
04/14/2004 |
536 |
2278 |
2 (d) |
If have copy, will produce |
197 |
513 |
04/14/2004 |
536 |
2279 – 2281 |
2 (d) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
201 |
645 |
04/14/2004 |
616 |
2630 |
2 (d) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
See also Schedule E |
202 |
646 |
04/14/2004 |
616 |
2631 |
2 (d) |
Will produce if have a copy |
203 |
647 |
04/14/2004 |
0616 – 0617 |
2632 |
2 (d) 20 (h) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
204 |
819 |
04/15/2004 |
735 |
3178 – 3180 |
2 (d) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
219 |
1029 |
04/16/2004 |
948 |
4178-9 |
3 (a) |
Benyak agrees to answer to Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
223 |
1036 |
04/16/2004 |
951 |
4187 |
3 (a) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
233 |
1089 |
04/16/2004 |
988 |
4319 |
3 (a) |
Will produce if provided |
235 |
1148 |
06/11/2004 |
1062 |
4572 - 4575 |
3 (a) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
241 |
1200 |
06/11/2004 |
1089 |
4687 |
3 (a) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban See also Schedule E |
243 |
1206 |
06/11/2004 |
1091 - 1092 |
4698 - 4699 |
3 (a) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
262 |
1319 |
06/11/2004 |
1170 |
5001 - 5002 |
3 (a) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
264 |
1364 |
06/11/2004 |
1195 |
5111 |
3 (a) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
See also Schedule E |
265 |
1366 |
06/11/2004 |
1196 |
5113 |
3 (a) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
276 |
1722 |
08/25/2004 |
1464 - 1465 |
5949 - 5950 |
3 (a) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
289 |
1868 |
08/26/2004 |
1594 |
6200 |
3 (a) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban. This does not create a precedent. |
290 |
1989 |
08/26/2004 |
1684 - 1685 |
6397 |
3 (a) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
291 |
2015 |
08/26/2004 |
1703 - 1704 |
6446 |
3 (a) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Molnar's knowledge, information and belief. |
292 |
2016 |
08/26/2004 |
1704 |
6446 |
3 (a) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Molnar's knowledge, information and belief. |
293 |
2017 |
08/26/2004 |
1704 - 1705 |
6446 |
3 (a) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
294 |
2022 |
08/26/2004 |
1714 |
6464 |
3 (a) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
295 |
1054 |
04/16/2004 |
960 |
4217 |
3 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
298 |
1124 |
04/16/2004 |
1035 |
4525 |
3 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
299 |
1174 |
06/11/2004 |
1080 |
4645 |
3 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
300 |
1175 |
06/11/2004 |
1080 - 1081 |
4646 |
3 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
301 |
1181 |
06/11/2004 |
1082 |
4655 - 4657 |
3 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
302 |
1182 |
06/11/2004 |
1083 |
4658 |
3 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
See also Schedule E |
303 |
1183 |
06/11/2004 |
1083 |
4659 |
3 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
See also Schedule E |
305 |
1185 |
06/11/2004 |
1083 - 1084 |
4661 - 4663 |
3 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
306 |
1186 |
06/11/2004 |
1084 |
4664 - 4665 |
3 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban See also Schedule E |
310 |
1222 |
06/11/2004 |
1098 |
4716 |
3 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban See also Schedule E |
317 |
1340 |
06/11/2004 |
1183 |
5057 |
3 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
326 |
1806 |
08/25/2004 |
1526 |
6094 |
3 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
327 |
1807 |
08/25/2004 |
1527 |
6095 |
3 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
340 |
1276 |
06/11/2004 |
1142 |
4883 |
3 (c) 20 (h) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
341 |
1278 |
06/11/2004 |
1143 |
4889 |
3 (c) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
342 |
1715 |
08/25/2004 |
1462 |
5941 |
3 (c) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
349 |
1723 |
08/25/2004 |
1465 |
5951 |
3 (c) 20 (h) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
351 |
1725 |
08/25/2004 |
1465 |
5953 |
3 (c) 20 (h) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
360 |
1736 |
08/25/2004 |
1468 |
5967 |
3 (c) 20 (h) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
361 |
1737 |
08/25/2004 |
1468 |
5968 |
3 (c) 20 (h) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
396 |
1405 |
06/11/2004 |
1219 |
5208 |
3 (d) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
405 |
1418 |
06/11/2004 |
1225 |
5227 |
3 (d) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
406 |
1419 |
06/11/2004 |
1226 – 1227 |
5228 – 5229 |
3 (d) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
417 |
1446 |
06/11/2004 |
1236 |
5268 |
3 (d) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
421 |
1468 |
06/11/2004 |
1248 |
5316 – 5317 |
3 (d) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
430 |
1509 |
06/11/2004 |
1275 – 1276 |
5410 |
3 (d) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
434 |
453 |
04/14/2004 |
0509 - 0510 |
2165 |
4 |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
439 |
828 |
04/15/2004 |
743 |
3213-3217 |
4 |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
442 |
831 |
04/15/2004 |
744 |
3221-3222 |
4 |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
450 |
843 |
04/15/2004 |
765 |
3324 |
4 |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
460 |
1689 |
08/25/2004 |
1450 |
5909 |
4 |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
465 |
1689 |
0825/2004 |
1450 |
5909 |
4 20 (h) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
467 |
1985 |
08/26/2004 |
1681 |
6388 |
4 |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
468 |
1986 |
08/26/2004 |
1681 - 1682 |
6389 - 6390 |
4 |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
469 |
1987 |
08/26/2004 |
1682 - 1683 |
6391 - 6392 |
4 |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
470 |
2003 |
08/26/2004 |
1694 |
6417 |
4 |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
471 |
2005 |
08/26/2004 |
1695 |
6422 - 6423 |
4 |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
472 |
2007 |
08/26/2004 |
1697 |
6427 |
4 |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
473 |
2034 |
08/26/2004 |
1725 |
6497 |
4 |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
491 |
2060 |
08/26/2004 |
1759 |
6574 |
5 (a) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
492 |
2061 |
08/26/2004 |
1759 |
6575 |
5 (a) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
493 |
2062 |
08/26/2004 |
1760 |
6576 |
5 (a) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
494 |
2063 |
08/26/2004 |
1760 |
6577 |
5 (a) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
495 |
2064 |
08/26/2004 |
1760 |
6578 |
5 (a) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
498 |
2071 |
08/26/2004 |
1769 |
6588 |
5 (a) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
499 |
2072 |
08/26/2004 |
1769 – 1770 |
6589 |
5 (a) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
505 |
137 |
04/13/2004 |
0252 – 0254 |
1115 - 1120 |
5 (b) 20 (e) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
506 |
140 |
04/13/2004 |
255 |
1123 |
5 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
507 |
143 |
04/13/2004 |
256 |
1129 |
5 (b) 20 (e) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
509 |
239 |
04/13/2004 |
0351 – 0352 |
1555 – 1562 |
5 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
510 |
240 |
04/13/2004 |
356 |
1572 |
5 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
513 |
344 |
04/14/2004 |
0458 – 0459 |
1961 |
5 (b) 20 (e) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
518 |
1096 |
04/16/2004 |
1005 |
4406 |
5 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
536 |
1994 |
08/26/2004 |
1688 – 1689 |
6405 |
5 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
540 1519 |
2035 |
08/26/2004 |
1726 |
6498 |
5 (b) 17 |
0540: Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
1519: Duplicate of 0540 |
543 |
2049 |
08/26/2004 |
1742 – 1743 |
6552 |
5 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
544 |
2050 |
08/26/2004 |
1744 |
6555 |
5 (b) 20 (h) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
545 |
2051 |
08/26/2004 |
1744 |
6556 |
5 (b) 20 (h) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
546 |
2070 |
08/26/2004 |
1765 – 1766 |
6587 |
5 (b) 20 (h) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
551 |
2080 |
08/26/2004 |
1775 – 1776 |
6600 |
5 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
552 |
2081 |
08/26/2004 |
1776 |
6601 |
5 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
553 |
1139 |
04/16/2004 |
1045 |
4557 |
5 (c) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
554 |
1140 |
04/16/2004 |
1045 |
4558 |
5 (c) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
555 |
1755 |
08/25/2004 |
1481 – 1482 |
6002 – 3 |
5 (c) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
556 |
1756 |
08/25/2004 |
1482 |
6004 |
5 (c) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
557 |
1757 |
08/25/2004 |
1482 |
6005 |
5 (c) 20 (h) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
558 |
1759 |
08/25/2004 |
1483 |
6007 |
5 (c) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
559 |
1760 |
08/25/2004 |
1483 |
6008 |
5 (c) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
560 |
1766 |
08/25/2004 |
1487 |
6015 |
5 (c) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
561 |
1773 |
08/25/2004 |
1491 |
6029 |
5 (c) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
964 |
889 |
04/15/2004 |
799 |
3485 |
9 (a) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
974 |
1698 |
04/15/2004 |
1455 |
5920 |
9 (a) 20 (h) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
1033 |
1696 |
08/25/2004 |
1454 |
5918 |
9 (b) 20 (h) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
1041 |
1934 |
08/26/2004 |
1648 |
6305 |
10 (a) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
1044 |
1946 |
08/26/2004 |
1654 – 1655 |
6325 |
10 (a) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
1053 |
1967 |
08/26/2004 |
1668 – 1669 |
6366 |
10 (a) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
1068 |
1936 |
08/26/2004 |
1650 |
6308 |
10 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
1077 |
1953 |
08/26/2004 |
1661 |
6343 |
10 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
1078 |
1954 |
08/26/2004 |
1661 |
6345 |
10 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
1098 |
1991 |
08/26/2004 |
1685 |
6398 |
2 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
1333 |
1637 |
08/24/2004 |
1397 - 1398 |
5786 |
13 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
1350 |
1655 |
08/24/2004 |
1413 |
5821 |
13 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
1351 |
1656 |
08/24/2004 |
1413 |
5822 - 5823 |
13 (b) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
1390 |
4 |
04/06/2004 |
0052 - 0053 |
180 |
13 (c) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
1391 |
5 |
04/06/2004 |
55 |
194 |
13 (c) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
1405 |
73 |
04/06/2004 |
132 |
550 |
13 (c) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban Answer from 1992 |
1406 |
116 |
04/06/2004 |
0182 - 0183 |
819 |
13 (c) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban Answer from 1992 |
1407 |
117 |
04/06/2004 |
0183 - 0184 |
820 |
13 (c) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban Answer from 1992 |
1408 |
118 |
04/06/2004 |
184 |
821 |
13 (c) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban Answer from 1992 |
1412 |
1527 |
08/23/2004 |
1300 |
5465 |
13 (c) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban Answer from 1992 onwards |
1417 |
1534 |
08/23/2004 |
1305 |
5472 |
13 (c) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
1428 |
1571 |
08/24/2004 |
1334 |
5575 |
13 (c) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
1430 |
1648 |
08/24/2004 |
1411 |
5814 |
13 (b) |
Category 13 (b): Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
Question duplicated in category 13 (c) |
1435 |
1678 |
08/25/2004 |
1441 |
5887 – 5889 |
13 (b) 13 (c) |
Withdrawn without prejudice |
1438 |
1741 |
08/25/2004 |
1470 |
5973 |
13 (c) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
1439 |
1742 |
08/25/2004 |
1474 |
5976 |
13 (c) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
1444 |
1747 |
08/25/2004 |
1477 |
5985 |
13 (c) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
1445 |
1748 |
08/25/2004 |
1477 - 1478 |
5986 - 5988 |
13 (c) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
1446 |
1749 |
08/25/2004 |
1478 |
5989 - 5990 |
13 (c) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
1448 |
1751 |
08/25/2004 |
1479 |
5996 |
13 (c) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
1459 |
1879 |
08/26/2004 |
1603 - 1604 |
6220 |
13 (c) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
1466 |
2078 |
08/26/2004 |
1774 |
6596 – 6597 |
4 13 (c) |
First
part, down to “for the assistance” is dealt with in Schedule “A”. |
1484 |
1776 |
08/25/2004 |
1492 |
6032 |
13 (e) |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
1490 |
440 |
04/14/2004 |
0506 |
2148 |
15 |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
1491 |
441 |
04/14/2004 |
0506 |
2149 |
15 |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
1505 |
442 |
04/14/2004 |
0506 - 0507 |
2150 |
17 |
Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban |
1521 |
620 |
04/14/2004 |
586 |
2508 - 2509 |
18 (a) |
Agreed to answer. Privileged notes can be expurgated from the documents produced. The only documents not to be produced are those where Nu-Pharm is bound to a third party by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order. Where a document is not produced as being caught by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order to a third party, Nu-Pharm is to stipulate that the document will not be produced for that reason, and specify what is the nature of that Order or undertaking. |
1522 |
621 |
04/14/2004 |
0586 - 0587 |
2510 |
18 (a) |
Agreed to answer. Privileged notes can be expurgated from the documents produced. The only documents not to be produced are those where Nu-Pharm is bound to a third party by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order. Where a document is not produced as being caught by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order to a third party, Nu-Pharm is to stipulate that the document will not be produced for that reason, and specify what is the nature of that Order or undertaking. |
1523 |
622 |
04/14/2004 |
587 |
2511 |
18 (a) |
Agreed to answer. Privileged notes can be expurgated from the documents produced. The only documents not to be produced are those where Nu-Pharm is bound to a third party by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order. Where a document is not produced as being caught by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order to a third party, Nu-Pharm is to stipulate that the document will not be produced for that reason, and specify what is the nature of that Order or undertaking. |
1524 |
925 |
04/15/2004 |
826 |
3598 |
18 (a) |
Agreed to answer. Privileged notes can be expurgated from the documents produced. The only documents not to be produced are those where Nu-Pharm is bound to a third party by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order. Where a document is not produced as being caught by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order to a third party, Nu-Pharm is to stipulate that the document will not be produced for that reason, and specify what is the nature of that Order or undertaking. |
1525 |
926 |
04/15/2004 |
827 |
3599 |
18 (a) |
Agreed to answer. Privileged notes can be expurgated from the documents produced. The only documents not to be produced are those where Nu-Pharm is bound to a third party by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order. Where a document is not produced as being caught by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order to a third party, Nu-Pharm is to stipulate that the document will not be produced for that reason, and specify what is the nature of that Order or undertaking. |
1526 |
927 |
04/15/2004 |
827 |
3600 |
18 (a) |
Agreed to answer. Privileged notes can be expurgated from the documents produced. The only documents not to be produced are those where Nu-Pharm is bound to a third party by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order. Where a document is not produced as being caught by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order to a third party, Nu-Pharm is to stipulate that the document will not be produced for that reason, and specify what is the nature of that Order or undertaking. |
1527 |
1889 |
08/26/2004 |
1611 |
6235 |
18 (a) |
Agreed to answer. Privileged notes can be expurgated from the documents produced. The only documents not to be produced are those where Nu-Pharm is bound to a third party by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order. Where a document is not produced as being caught by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order to a third party, Nu-Pharm is to stipulate that the document will not be produced for that reason, and specify what is the nature of that Order or undertaking. |
1534 |
325 |
04/13/2004 |
434 |
1869 |
18 (b) |
Agreed to answer. Privileged notes can be expurgated from the documents produced. The only documents not to be produced are those where Nu-Pharm is bound to a third party by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order. Where a document is not produced as being caught by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order to a third party, Nu-Pharm is to stipulate that the document will not be produced for that reason, and specify what is the nature of that Order or undertaking. |
1535 |
326 |
04/13/2004 |
434 |
1870 |
18 (b) |
Agreed to answer. Privileged notes can be expurgated from the documents produced. The only documents not to be produced are those where Nu-Pharm is bound to a third party by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order. Where a document is not produced as being caught by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order to a third party, Nu-Pharm is to stipulate that the document will not be produced for that reason, and specify what is the nature of that Order or undertaking. |
1537 |
1598 |
08/24/2004 |
1360 |
5669 |
18 (b) |
Agreed to answer |
1538 |
1599 |
08/24/2004 |
1360 |
5671 |
18 (b) |
Agreed to answer |
1539 |
1600 |
08/24/2004 |
1361 |
5673 |
18 (b) |
Agreed to answer |
1540 |
1601 |
08/24/2004 |
1361 |
5677 |
18 (b) |
Agreed to answer |
1541 |
1602 |
08/24/2004 |
1362 |
5678 |
18 (b) |
Agreed to answer |
1542 |
1685 |
08/25/2004 |
1447 |
5903 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to answer |
1543 |
1686 |
08/25/2004 |
1448 |
5904 |
18 (b) |
Agreed to answer |
1545 |
1899 |
08/26/2004 |
1616 |
6246 |
18 (b) |
Agreed to answer |
1546 |
1900 |
08/26/2004 |
1617 - 1619 |
6248 - 6249 |
18 (b) |
Agreed to answer |
1547 |
1904 |
08/26/2004 |
1623 - 1624 |
6255 |
18 (b) |
Agreed to answer |
1548 |
1778 |
08/25/2004 |
1493 - 1494 |
6036 |
18 (c) |
Agreed to answer |
1550 |
1833 |
08/25/2004 |
1555 |
6138 |
18 (c) 20 (j) |
Withdrawn without prejudice |
1551 |
1836 |
08/25/2004 |
1559 - 1560 |
6147 |
18 (c) 20 (j) |
Agreed to answer. Privileged notes can be expurgated from the documents produced. The only documents not to be produced are those where Nu-Pharm is bound to a third party by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order. Where a document is not produced as being caught by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order to a third party, Nu-Pharm is to stipulate that the document will not be produced for that reason, and specify what is the nature of that Order or undertaking. |
1554 |
1866 |
08/25/2004 |
1585 - 1586 |
6194 |
18 (c) 20 (h) |
Agreed to answer |
1556 |
2026 |
08/26/2004 |
1717 |
6472 |
18 (c) |
Agreed to answer |
1557 |
2027 |
08/26/2004 |
1717 |
6473 |
18 (c) |
Agreed to answer |
1558 |
2028 |
08/26/2004 |
1717 - 1718 |
6474 |
18 (c) |
Agreed to answer |
1559 |
811 |
04/15/2004 |
723 |
3135 |
18 (d) |
Agreed to answer. Privileged notes can be expurgated from the documents produced. The only documents not to be produced are those where Nu-Pharm is bound to a third party by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order. Where a document is not produced as being caught by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order to a third party, Nu-Pharm is to stipulate that the document will not be produced for that reason, and specify what is the nature of that Order or undertaking. |
1560 |
812 |
04/15/2004 |
723 |
3136 |
18 (d) |
Agreed to answer. Privileged notes can be expurgated from the documents produced. The only documents not to be produced are those where Nu-Pharm is bound to a third party by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order. Where a document is not produced as being caught by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order to a third party, Nu-Pharm is to stipulate that the document will not be produced for that reason, and specify what is the nature of that Order or undertaking. |
1561 |
813 |
04/15/2004 |
724 |
3137 |
18 (d) |
Agreed to answer. Privileged notes can be expurgated from the documents produced. The only documents not to be produced are those where Nu-Pharm is bound to a third party by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order. Where a document is not produced as being caught by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order to a third party, Nu-Pharm is to stipulate that the document will not be produced for that reason, and specify what is the nature of that Order or undertaking. |
1562 |
924 |
04/15/2004 |
826 |
3596 |
18 (d) |
Agreed to answer |
1563 |
1145 |
04/16/2004 |
1050 |
4569 |
18 (d) |
Withdrawn without prejudice |
1568 |
1588 |
08/24/2004 |
1351 |
5635 |
18 (d) |
Agreed to answer |
1569 |
1603 |
08/24/2004 |
1365 |
5687 |
18 (d) |
Agreed to answer |
1571 |
1828 |
08/25/2004 |
1548 - 1549 |
6129 |
18 (d) |
Agreed to answer |
1575 |
1832 |
08/25/2004 |
1551 - 1554 |
6136 |
18 (d) |
Agreed to answer. The only documents not to be produced are those where Nu-Pharm is bound to a third party by an implied undertaking or a Confidentiality Order. Where a document is not produced as being caught by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order to a third party, Nu-Pharm is to stipulate that the document will not be produced for that reason, and specify what is the nature of that Order or undertaking. |
1583 |
1921 |
08/26/2004 |
1640 |
6292 |
18 (d) |
Agreed to answer |
1585 |
1925 |
08/26/2004 |
1641 |
6296 |
18 (d) |
Agreed to answer |
1586 |
1926 |
08/26/2004 |
1641 – 1642 |
6297 |
18 (d) |
Agreed to answer. Privileged notes can be expurgated from the documents produced. The only documents not to be produced are those where Nu-Pharm is bound to a third party by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order. Where a document is not produced as being caught by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order to a third party, Nu-Pharm is to stipulate that the document will not be produced for that reason, and specify what is the nature of that Order or undertaking. |
1589 |
1929 |
08/26/2004 |
1642 |
6300 |
18 (d) |
Agreed to answer, subject to a proper claim for privilege and if litigation privilege is claimed, Nu-Pharm/Benyak shall specifically assert that privilege was not waived by providing it to Sherman |
1590 |
1932 |
08/26/2004 |
1646 |
6302 |
18 (d) 20 (j) |
Agreed to answer. Privileged notes can be expurgated from the documents produced. The only documents not to be produced are those where Nu-Pharm is bound to a third party by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order. Where a document is not produced as being caught by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order to a third party, Nu-Pharm is to stipulate that the document will not be produced for that reason, and specify what is the nature of that Order or undertaking. |
Court File No. T-753-99
This is Schedule “C” to the Order of November 24, 2006
No |
Reqstno |
Discdate |
Pageno |
Questno |
Category |
Disposition |
|
3 |
04/06/2004 |
49 |
170 |
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
122 |
04/06/2004 |
203 |
0918-9 |
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
149 |
04/13/2004 |
261 |
1146 |
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
234 |
04/13/2004 |
344 |
1518 |
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
271 |
04/13/2004 |
386 |
1701 |
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
322 |
04/13/2004 |
433 |
1866 |
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
324 |
04/13/2004 |
434 |
1868 |
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
327 |
04/13/2004 |
435 |
1871 |
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
334 |
04/14/2004 |
450 |
1912 |
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
335 |
04/14/2004 |
450 |
1913 |
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
348 |
04/14/2004 |
464 |
1973 |
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
423 |
04/14/2004 |
500 |
2112, |
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
476 |
04/14/2004 |
521 |
2213 |
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
592 |
04/14/2004 |
574 |
2439 |
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
595 |
04/14/2004 |
0575 – 0576 |
2444 |
|
Withdrawn without prejudice |
|
598 |
04/14/2004 |
0575 - 0576 |
2448 |
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
605 |
04/14/2004 |
578 |
2460 |
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
615 |
04/14/2004 |
0583 - 0584 |
2493 - 2497 |
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
618 |
04/14/2004 |
0585 - 0586 |
2504 - 2505 |
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
619 |
04/14/2004 |
586 |
2506 - 2507 |
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
623 |
04/14/2004 |
588 |
2514, |
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
697 |
04/14/2004 |
640 |
2764 - 2765 |
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
698 |
04/14/2004 |
0640 - 0641 |
2764 - 2765, |
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
699 |
04/14/2004 |
641 |
2764 - 2765, 2768 |
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
714 |
04/15/2004 |
665 |
2851-2852 |
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
930 |
04/15/2004 |
833 |
3643 |
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
1057 |
04/16/2004 |
0961-0962 |
4222-4223 |
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
1115 |
04/16/2004 |
1032 - 1033 |
4512 |
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
1116 |
04/16/2004 |
1033 |
4513 |
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
1155 |
06/11/2004 |
1066 |
4586 - 4587 |
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
1507 |
06/11/2004 |
1274 - 1275 |
5408 |
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
1515 |
06/11/2004 |
1280 |
5421 |
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
1520 |
06/11/2004 |
1287 |
5442 |
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
1572 |
08/24/2004 |
1334 |
5576 |
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
1573 |
08/24/2004 |
1334 - 1335 |
5577 |
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
1729 |
08/25/2004 |
1467 |
5959 |
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
1769 |
08/25/2004 |
1488 |
6018 |
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
1771 |
08/25/2004 |
1488 - 1489 |
6020 |
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
1809 |
08/25/2004 |
1530 |
6101 |
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
1884 |
08/26/2004 |
1609 - 1610 |
6229 |
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
1961 |
08/26/2004 |
1666 |
6358 |
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
1990 |
08/26/2004 |
1685 |
6398 |
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
2018 |
08/26/2004 |
1706 - 1710 |
6454 - 6456 |
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
2020 |
08/26/2004 |
1709 - 1711 |
6456 - 6457 |
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
WI001 |
04/22/2005 |
|
|
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
WI002 |
04/22/2005 |
|
|
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
WI005 |
04/22/2005 |
|
|
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
WI006 |
04/22/2005 |
|
|
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
WI008 |
04/22/2005 |
|
|
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
WI011 |
04/22/2005 |
|
|
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
WI012 |
04/22/2005 |
|
|
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
WI015 |
04/22/2005 |
|
|
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
WI017 |
04/22/2005 |
|
|
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
WI022 |
04/22/2005 |
|
|
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
WI023 |
04/22/2005 |
|
|
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
WI032 |
04/22/2005 |
|
|
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
WI034 |
04/22/2005 |
|
|
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
WI038 |
04/22/2005 |
|
|
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
WI040 |
04/22/2005 |
|
|
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
WI041 |
04/22/2005 |
|
|
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
|
WI043 |
04/22/2005 |
|
|
|
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
3 |
182 |
04/13/2004 |
299 |
1325 - 1326 |
1 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
65 |
1784 |
08/25/2004 |
1501 |
6051 |
1 (c) |
Answered as indicated in Respondent's Position column in chart |
90 |
795 |
04/15/2004 |
714 |
3085 |
2 (a) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
104 |
1970 |
08/26/2004 |
1670 |
6370 |
2 (a) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
109 |
2001 |
08/26/2004 |
1692 - 1693 |
6414 |
2 (a) |
Answered as indicated in Respondent's Position in column chart |
110 |
2008 |
08/26/2004 |
1697 - 1698 |
6431 |
2 (a) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
111 |
2009 |
08/26/2004 |
1699 |
6434 |
2 (a) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
112 |
2029 |
08/26/2004 |
1718 - 1719 |
6475 |
2 (a) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
167 |
2036 |
08/26/2004 |
1728 |
6504 |
2 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice: c |
173 |
2045 |
08/26/2004 |
1735 - 1736 |
6528 - 6530 |
2 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
190 |
217 |
04/13/2004 |
320 |
1428 |
2 (d) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
205 |
824 |
04/15/2004 |
738 |
3194 |
2 (d) |
Answered as indicated in Respondent's Position column in chart |
206 |
931 |
04/15/2004 |
834 |
3644 |
2 (d) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
209 |
2068 |
08/26/2004 |
1765 |
6585 |
2 (d) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
211 |
728 |
04/15/2004 |
685 |
2939-2940 |
3 (a) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
215 |
938 |
04/16/2004 |
857 |
3700 |
3 (a) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
228 |
1053 |
04/16/2004 |
960 |
4216 |
3 (a) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
232 |
1088 |
04/16/2004 |
0987 - 0988 |
4318 |
3 (a) |
Answered as indicated in Respondent's Position column in chart |
234 |
1100 |
04/16/2004 |
1015 |
4449-4450 |
3 (a) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
240 |
1159 |
06/11/2004 |
1070 - 1071 |
4603 - 4605 |
3 (a) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
244 |
1207 |
06/11/2004 |
1092 |
4699 |
3 (a) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
245 |
1208 |
06/11/2004 |
1092 |
4700 |
3 (a) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
246 |
1209 |
06/11/2004 |
1092 |
4701 |
3 (a) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
247 |
1210 |
06/11/2004 |
1093 |
4702 |
3 (a) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
248 |
1214 |
06/11/2004 |
1094 |
4706 |
3 (a) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
249 |
1215 |
06/11/2004 |
1094 - 1095 |
4707 |
3 (a) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
250 |
1216 |
06/11/2004 |
1095 |
4708 |
3 (a) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
251 |
1217 |
06/11/2004 |
1095 |
4709 |
3 (a) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
257 |
1254 |
06/11/2004 |
1128 |
4831 |
3 (a) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
263 |
1363 |
06/11/2004 |
1193 - 1194 |
5103 - 5104 |
3 (a) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
272 |
1586 |
08/24/2004 |
1350 |
5631 |
3 (a) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
274 |
1699 |
08/25/20004 |
1455 |
5921 |
3 (a) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
275 |
1714 |
08/25/2004 |
1462 |
5940 |
3 (a) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
283 |
1814 |
08/25/2004 |
1533 |
6104 |
3 (a) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
286 |
1817 |
08/25/2004 |
1536 |
6107 |
3 (a) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
287 |
1818 |
08/25/2004 |
1538 |
6108 |
3 (a) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
288 |
1819 |
08/25/2004 |
1538 - 1539 |
6109 |
3 (a) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
334 |
1268 |
06/11/2004 |
1137 |
4862 |
3 (c) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
336 |
1270 |
06/11/2004 |
1138 - 1139 |
4869 |
3 (c) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
345 |
1718 |
08/25/2004 |
1463 |
5944 - 5945 |
3 (c) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
346 |
1719 |
08/25/2004 |
1464 |
5946 |
3 (c) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
347 |
1720 |
08/25/2004 |
1464 |
5947 |
3 (c) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
350 |
1724 |
08/25/2004 |
1465 |
5952 |
3 (c) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
359 |
1734 |
08/25/2004 |
1468 |
5965 |
3 (c) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
362 |
1738 |
08/25/2004 |
1469 |
5969 |
3 (c) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
363 |
1811 |
08/25/2004 |
1530 - 1541 |
6111 |
3 (c) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
364 |
1820 |
08/25/2004 |
1541 - 1542 |
6112 |
3 (c) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
365 |
1821 |
08/25/2004 |
1541 - 1542 |
6112 |
3 (c) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
423 |
1500 |
06/11/2004 |
1270 |
5395 |
3 (d) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
424 |
1501 |
06/11/2004 |
1270 |
5396 |
3 (d) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
432 |
233 |
04/13/2004 |
344 |
1516 - 1517 |
4 |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
435 |
477 |
04/14/2004 |
0521 - 0522 |
2214 - 2216 |
4 |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
443 |
835 |
04/15/2004 |
751 |
3252 |
4 |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
455 |
916 |
04/15/2004 |
816 |
3569 |
4 |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
457 |
1581 |
08/24/2004 |
1345 |
5615 |
4 |
Answered in answers to undertakings delivered May 19, 2006 |
461 |
1690 |
08/25/2004 |
1452 |
5910 |
4 |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
462 |
1691 |
08/25/2004 |
1452 |
5911 |
4 |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
463 |
1692 |
08/25/2004 |
1452 |
5912 |
4 |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
478 |
220 |
04/13/2004 |
328 |
1457 |
5 (a) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
479 |
221 |
04/13/2004 |
329 |
1458 |
5 (a) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
481 |
223 |
04/13/2004 |
0334 - 0335 |
1476 |
5 (a) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
482 |
224 |
04/13/2004 |
335 |
1477 |
5 (a) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
483 |
225 |
04/13/2004 |
335 |
1478 |
5 (a) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
484 |
226 |
04/13/2004 |
335 |
1479 |
5 (a) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
485 |
228 |
04/13/2004 |
339 |
1499 |
5 (a) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
487 |
2053 |
08/26/2004 |
1755 |
6567 |
5 (a) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
489 |
2058 |
08/26/2004 |
1758 |
6572 |
5 (a) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
490 |
2059 |
08/26/2004 |
1759 |
6573 |
5 (a) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
496 |
2066 |
08/26/2004 |
1763 - 1764 |
6580 |
5 (a) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
497 |
2069 |
08/26/2004 |
1765 |
6586 |
5 (a) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
500 |
125 |
04/06/2004 |
205 |
0931 - 0932 |
5 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
501 |
128 |
04/06/2004 |
208 |
944 |
5 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
502 |
129 |
04/06/2004 |
209 |
945 |
5 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
503 |
130 |
04/06/2004 |
209 |
949 |
5 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
504 |
131 |
04/06/2004 |
210 |
950 |
5 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
508 |
153 |
04/13/2004 |
264 |
1157 |
5 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
511 |
241 |
04/13/2004 |
0361 - 0362 |
1597 - 1599 |
5 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
512 |
242 |
04/13/2004 |
362 |
1600 |
5 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
514 |
705 |
04/15/2004 |
652 |
2800 |
5 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
516 |
817 |
04/15/2004 |
733 |
3168-3169 |
5 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
517 |
818 |
04/15/2004 |
733 |
3170 |
5 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
521 |
1135 |
04/16/2004 |
1043 |
4554 |
5 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
522 |
1136 |
04/16/2004 |
1044 |
4554 |
5 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
523 |
1137 |
04/16/2004 |
1044 - 1045 |
4555 |
5 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
525 |
1141 |
04/16/2004 |
1047 |
4562 |
5 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
526 |
1142 |
04/16/2004 |
1047 - 1048 |
4563 |
5 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
527 |
1143 |
04/16/2004 |
1048 |
4564 |
5 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
528 |
1144 |
04/16/2004 |
1048 |
4566 |
5 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
529 |
1739 |
08/25/2004 |
1469 |
5970 |
5 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
530 |
1740 |
08/25/2004 |
1470 |
5971 |
5 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
531 |
1753 |
08/25/2004 |
1480 |
5998 |
5 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
532 |
1754 |
08/25/2004 |
1481 |
6000 |
5 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
533 |
1758 |
08/25/2004 |
1482 |
6006 |
5 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
535 |
1780 |
08/25/2004 |
1495 |
6040 |
5 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
537 |
2025 |
08/26/2004 |
1716 |
6471 |
5 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
538 |
2031 |
08/26/2004 |
1721 - 1722 |
6488 |
5 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
0539 |
2033 |
08/26/2004 |
1725 |
6495 |
5 (b) |
0539: Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice 1518: Duplicate of 0539 |
541 |
2043 |
08/26/2004 |
1733 |
6520 |
5 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
542 |
2044 |
08/26/2004 |
1734 |
6522 |
5 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
565 |
588 |
04/14/2004 |
571 |
2429 |
6 (a) |
Answered in answers to undertakings delivered May 19, 2006 |
566 |
591 |
04/14/2004 |
573 |
2437 |
6 (a) |
Answered in answers to undertakings delivered May 19, 2006 |
567 |
601 |
04/14/2004 |
576 |
2451 |
6 (a) |
Answered in answers to undertakings delivered May 19, 2006 |
569 |
604 |
04/14/2004 |
578 |
2459 |
6 (a) |
Answered in answers to undertakings delivered May 19, 2006 |
576 |
1874 |
08/26/2004 |
1600 - 1601 |
6205 |
6 (a) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice as a result of new productions delivered by the respondents on June 8, 2006 |
577 |
1875 |
08/26/2004 |
1601 |
6216 |
6 (a) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice as a result of new productions delivered by the respondents on June 8, 2006 |
578 |
1876 |
08/26/2004 |
1602 |
6217 |
6 (a) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice as a result of new productions delivered by the respondents on June 8, 2006 |
579 |
1881 |
08/26/2004 |
1606 - 1607 |
6225 |
6 (a) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice as a result of new productions delivered by the respondents on June 8, 2006 |
585 |
1901 |
08/26/2004 |
1619 - 1620 |
6250 |
6 (a) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice as a result of new productions delivered by the respondents on June 8, 2006 |
586 |
1902 |
08/26/2004 |
1620 |
6252 - 6253 |
6 (a) |
Answered in answers to undertakings delivered May 19, 2006 |
587 |
1903 |
08/26/2004 |
1623 |
6254 |
6 (a) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice as a result of new productions delivered by the respondents on June 8, 2006 |
592 |
306 |
04/13/2004 |
411 |
1785 |
6 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice as a result of new productions delivered by the respondents on June 8, 2006 |
594 |
321 |
04/13/2004 |
432 |
1864 |
6 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice as a result of new productions delivered by the respondents on June 8, 2006 |
597 |
593 |
04/14/2004 |
574 |
2440 - 2442 |
6 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice as a result of new productions delivered by the respondents on June 8, 2006 |
607 |
1549 |
08/24/2004 |
1318 |
5509 |
6 (b) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
644 |
209 |
04/13/2004 |
315 |
1404 |
7 (a) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
646 |
243 |
04/13/2004 |
363 |
1607 - 1608 |
7 (a) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
647 |
244 |
04/13/2004 |
363 |
1609 |
7 (a) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice |
1034 |
1697 |
08/25/20004 |
1455 |
5919 |
9 (b) |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
1093 |
WI004 |
04/22/2005 |
|
|
11 (a) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1095 |
WI019 |
04/22/2005 |
|
|
11 (a) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1097 |
WI024 |
04/22/2005 |
|
|
11 (a) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1106 |
WI035 |
04/22/2005 |
|
|
11 (a) |
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
1108 |
WI037 |
04/22/2005 |
|
|
11 (a) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1117 |
WI054 |
04/22/2005 |
|
|
11 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1120 |
WI052 |
04/22/2005 |
|
|
11 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1121 |
WI053 |
04/22/2005 |
|
|
11 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1123 |
2102 |
03/04/2005 |
1806 |
6647 |
11 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1124 |
2103 |
03/04/2005 |
1807 |
6648 |
11 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1131 |
2111 |
03/04/2005 |
1815 - 1816 |
6663 |
11 (c) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1134 |
2092 |
03/04/2005 |
1796 |
6635 |
11 (c) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1135 |
2106 |
03/04/2005 |
1811 - 1813 |
6654 - |
11 (c) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1142 |
1909 |
08/26/2004 |
1630 |
6264 |
11 (d) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1146 |
1913 |
08/26/2004 |
1632 |
6270 |
11 (d) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1149 |
2085 |
03/04/2005 |
1784 |
6608 |
11 (d) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1162 |
2123 |
03/04/2005 |
1827 |
6688 |
11 (d) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1175 |
2203 |
03/04/2005 |
1909 - 1910 |
6883 |
11 (d) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1176 |
2204 |
03/04/2005 |
1910 - 1911 |
6884 |
11 (d) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1195 |
2151 |
03/04/2005 |
1856 |
6758 |
11 (e) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1209 |
2158 |
03/04/2005 |
1867 |
6778 |
11 (f) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1212 |
2163 |
03/04/2005 |
1872 - 1873 |
6790 |
11 (f) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1216 |
2170 |
03/04/2005 |
1879 - 1881 |
6807 |
11 (f) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1222 |
2177 |
03/04/2005 |
1887 |
6822 |
11 (f) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1223 |
2179 |
03/04/2005 |
1891 - 1892 |
6835 |
11 (f) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1229 |
2189 |
03/04/2005 |
1901 |
6859 |
11 (f) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1232 |
2194 |
03/04/2005 |
1904 |
6868 - 6869 |
11 (f) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1239 |
WI046 |
04/22/2005 |
|
|
11 (f) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1248 |
2231 |
03/04/2005 |
1941 |
6939 |
11 (i) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1269 |
1950 |
08/26/2004 |
1658 - 1659 |
6337 |
12 |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1270 |
1951 |
08/26/2004 |
1658 - 1659 |
6337 |
12 |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1271 |
20 |
04/06/2004 |
0065 - 0066 |
0249 - 0250 |
13 (a) |
Withdrawn without prejudice |
1272 |
21 |
04/06/2004 |
66 |
251 |
13 (a) |
Withdrawn without prejudice |
1273 |
27 |
04/06/2004 |
0069 - 0070 |
0262 - 0263 |
13 (a) |
Withdrawn without prejudice |
1274 |
30 |
04/06/2004 |
73 |
271 |
13 (a) |
Withdrawn without prejudice |
1275 |
49 |
04/06/2004 |
92 |
0354 - 0355 |
13 (a) |
Withdrawn without prejudice |
1276 |
1552 |
08/24/2004 |
1324 |
5531 |
13 (a) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1277 |
1553 |
08/24/2004 |
1324 |
5532 |
13 (a) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1278 |
1554 |
08/24/2004 |
1324 |
5533 |
13 (a) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1279 |
1556 |
08/24/2004 |
1325 |
5536 |
13 (a) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1280 |
1557 |
08/24/2004 |
1325 |
5537 |
13 (a) 20 (h) |
Agreed to answer |
1281 |
1558 |
08/24/2004 |
1325 |
5538 |
13 (a) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1282 |
1559 |
08/24/2004 |
1325 |
5539 |
13 (a) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1283 |
1561 |
08/24/2004 |
1326 |
5543 |
13 (a) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1284 |
1562 |
08/24/2004 |
1326 |
5544 |
13 (a) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1285 |
1563 |
08/24/2004 |
1326 - 1327 |
5545 |
13 (a) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1286 |
1564 |
08/24/2004 |
1327 |
5546 |
13 (a) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1287 |
1565 |
08/24/2004 |
1327 |
5547 |
13 (a) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1288 |
1566 |
08/24/2004 |
1327 |
5548 |
13 (a) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1289 |
1567 |
08/24/2004 |
1327 |
5549 |
13 (a) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1290 |
1568 |
08/24/2004 |
1328 |
5550 |
13 (a) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1291 |
1569 |
08/24/2004 |
1328 |
5551 |
13 (a) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1292 |
1594 |
08/24/2004 |
1356 |
5655 |
13 (a) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1292A |
98 |
04/06/2004 |
0164 - 0165 |
0745 - 0747 |
13 (a) |
Withdrawn without prejudice |
1292B |
99 |
04/06/2004 |
165 |
0748 - 0750 |
13 (a) |
Withdrawn without prejudice |
1292C |
166 |
04/13/2004 |
0281 – 0282 |
1232 – 1233 |
13 (a) 20 (g) |
Agreed to answer |
1293 |
31 |
04/06/2004 |
0074 - 0076 |
0277 - 0280 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
1294 |
38 |
04/06/2004 |
79 |
296 |
13 (b) |
Withdrawn without prejudice |
1295 |
39 |
04/06/2004 |
80 |
297 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
1297 |
41 |
04/06/2004 |
80 |
299 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
1298 |
42 |
04/06/2004 |
0080 - 0081 |
300 |
13 (b) |
Withdrawn without prejudice |
1299 |
43 |
04/06/2004 |
0081 - 0082 |
0304 - 0305 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1300 |
44 |
04/06/2004 |
82 |
306 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to answer |
1301 |
47 |
04/06/2004 |
86 |
0331 - 0334 |
13 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1302 |
70 |
04/06/2004 |
126 |
0516 - 0517 |
13 (b) |
Withdrawn without prejudice |
1303 |
79 |
04/06/2004 |
137 |
0583 - 0585 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
1304 |
172 |
04/13/2004 |
289 |
1268 |
13 (b) |
Withdrawn without prejudice |
1305 |
1536 |
08/23/2004 |
1305 |
5474 |
13 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1306 |
1542 |
08/24/2004 |
1312 |
5494 |
13 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1307 |
1543 |
08/24/2004 |
1312 |
5495 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
1308 |
1607 |
08/24/2004 |
1367 |
5693 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1309 |
1608 |
08/24/2004 |
1367 |
5694 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1310 |
1609 |
08/24/2004 |
1367 |
5695 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1311 |
1610 |
08/24/2004 |
1367 |
5696 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1312 |
1611 |
08/24/2004 |
1367 - 1368 |
5697 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1313 |
1612 |
08/24/2004 |
1368 |
5698 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1314 |
1613 |
08/24/2004 |
1369 - 1372 |
5699 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1315 |
1614 |
08/24/2004 |
1372 |
5700 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1316 |
1615 |
08/24/2004 |
1373 |
5701 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1318 |
1617 |
08/24/2004 |
1373 |
5703 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1322 |
1622 |
08/24/2004 |
1377 - 1378 |
5716 - 5717 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1323 |
1623 |
08/24/2004 |
1379 - 1380 |
5724 - 5725 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1324 |
1625 |
08/24/2004 |
1380 - 1381 |
5729 |
13 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1326 |
1628 |
08/24/2004 |
1381 |
5732 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1327 |
1629 |
08/24/2004 |
1383 |
5734 |
13 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1329 |
1632 |
08/24/2004 |
1389 - 1391 |
5760 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1330 |
1633 |
08/24/2004 |
1392 |
5763 - 5764 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1334 |
1638 |
08/24/2004 |
1398 |
5788 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1335 |
1639 |
08/24/2004 |
1398 |
5789 - 5790 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1336 |
1640 |
08/24/2004 |
1399 |
5791 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1337 |
1641 |
08/24/2004 |
1399 - 1402 |
5793 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1338 |
1643 |
08/24/2004 |
1402 - 1403 |
5794 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1339 |
1644 |
08/24/2004 |
1408 |
5808 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1340 |
1645 |
08/24/2004 |
1409 |
5809 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1344 |
1649 |
08/24/2004 |
1412 |
5815 |
13 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1345 |
1650 |
08/24/2004 |
1412 |
5816 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1346 |
1651 |
08/24/2004 |
1412 |
5817 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1347 |
1652 |
08/24/2004 |
1412 |
5818 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1349 |
1654 |
08/24/2004 |
1413 |
5820 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1352 |
1657 |
08/24/2004 |
1413 - 1414 |
5824 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1353 |
1658 |
08/24/2004 |
1414 |
5825 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1354 |
1659 |
08/24/2004 |
1414 |
5826 - 5827 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1355 |
1660 |
08/24/2004 |
1415 |
5828 - 5829 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1357 |
1662 |
08/24/2004 |
1416 |
5833 - 5834 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1358 |
1663 |
08/24/2004 |
1416 - 1417 |
5835 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1361 |
1666 |
08/24/2004 |
1417 |
5838 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1362 |
1667 |
08/24/2004 |
1418 |
5839 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1363 |
1669 |
08/24/2004 |
1420 - 1421 |
5847 - 5848 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1364 |
1670 |
08/24/2004 |
1421 - 1423 |
5849 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1366 |
1672 |
08/25/2004 |
1433 |
5868 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1367 |
1673 |
08/25/2004 |
1433 - 1434 |
5870 - 5871 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1368 |
1674 |
08/25/2004 |
1435 |
5676 - 5877 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1370 |
1676 |
08/25/2004 |
1437 - 1438 |
5882 |
13 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1374 |
1680 |
08/25/2004 |
1443 - 1444 |
5893 |
13 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1375 |
1681 |
08/25/2004 |
1444 - 1445 |
5896 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1376 |
1682 |
08/25/2004 |
1445 |
5897 - 5898 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1378 |
1684 |
08/25/2004 |
1446 - 1447 |
5902 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1400 |
23 |
04/06/2004 |
0067 - 0068 |
256 |
13 (c) |
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
1402 |
28 |
04/06/2004 |
0070 - 0073 |
0268 - 0270 |
13 (c) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1404 |
62 |
04/06/2004 |
109 |
444 |
13 (c) |
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
1409 |
1524 |
08/23/2004 |
1298 |
5462 |
13 (c) |
Withdrawn without prejudice |
1413 |
1529 |
08/23/2004 |
1301 |
5467 |
13 (c) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1414 |
1530 |
08/23/2004 |
1301 |
5468 |
13 (c) 20 (h) |
First part withdrawn without prejudice; Second part ordered answered |
1415 |
1532 |
08/23/2004 |
1302 |
5470 |
13 (c) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1416 |
1533 |
08/23/2004 |
1304 |
5471 |
13 (c) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1418 |
1535 |
08/23/2004 |
1305 |
5473 |
13 (c) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1419 |
1538 |
08/24/2004 |
1306 |
5475 |
13 (c) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1420 |
1539 |
08/24/2004 |
1311 |
5489 |
13 (c) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1421 |
1540 |
08/24/2004 |
1311 |
5490 |
13 (c) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1422 |
1541 |
08/24/2004 |
1312 |
5491 |
13 (c) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1423 |
1544 |
08/24/2004 |
1315 |
5501 |
13 (c) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1424 |
1545 |
08/24/2004 |
1315 |
5502 |
13 (c) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1425 |
1546 |
08/24/2004 |
1315 - 1316 |
5503 |
13 (c) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1426 |
1547 |
08/24/2004 |
1316 |
5504 |
13 (c) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1427 |
1548 |
08/24/2004 |
1316 |
5505 |
13 (c) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1429 |
1647 |
08/24/2004 |
1411 |
5813 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1431 |
1664 |
08/24/2004 |
1417 |
5836 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1432 |
1665 |
08/24/2004 |
1417 |
5837 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1434 |
1675 |
08/25/2004 |
1435 - 1436 |
5878 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1436 |
1701 |
08/25/20004 |
1456 |
5923 - 5924 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1437 |
1702 |
08/25/2004 |
1456 |
5925 |
13 (b) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1440 |
1743 |
08/25/2004 |
1474 |
5978 |
13 (c) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1441 |
1744 |
08/25/2004 |
1475 |
5979 |
13 (c) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1442 |
1745 |
08/25/2004 |
1475 - 1476 |
5980 - 5982 |
13 (c) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1443 |
1746 |
08/25/2004 |
1476 |
5984 |
13 (c) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1447 |
1750 |
08/25/2004 |
1479 |
5994 - 5995 |
13 (c) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1456 |
1772 |
08/25/2004 |
1489 |
6021 |
13 (b) |
Withdrawn without prejudice |
1457 |
1781 |
08/25/2004 |
1496 |
6042 - 6043 |
13 (c) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1460 |
1919 |
08/26/2004 |
1639 |
6290 |
13 (c) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1461 |
1920 |
08/26/2004 |
1639 |
6291 |
13 (c) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1467 |
119 |
04/06/2004 |
188 |
0841 - 0842 |
13 (d) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1468 |
121 |
04/06/2004 |
192 |
862 |
13 (d) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1469 |
1555 |
08/24/2004 |
1324 |
5534 |
13 (d) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1470 |
1560 |
08/24/2004 |
1325 - 1326 |
5540-5541 |
13 (d) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1471 |
1704 |
08/25/2004 |
1457 |
5927 |
13 (d) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1472 |
1705 |
08/25/2004 |
1457 |
5928 |
13 (d) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1473 |
1706 |
08/25/2004 |
1457 |
5929 |
13 (d) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1474 |
1707 |
08/25/2004 |
1458 |
5930 - 5931 |
13 (d) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1475 |
1708 |
08/25/2004 |
1458 |
5932 |
13 (d) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1476 |
1709 |
08/25/2004 |
1458 |
5933 |
13 (d) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1477 |
1710 |
08/25/2004 |
1459 |
5934 |
13 (d) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1479 |
1712 |
08/25/2004 |
1459 |
5937 |
13 (d) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1480 |
1713 |
08/25/2004 |
1460 |
5938 |
13 (d) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1482 |
1774 |
08/25/2004 |
1491 |
6030 |
13 (e) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1483 |
1775 |
08/25/2004 |
1491 |
6031 |
13 (e) |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1485 |
1777 |
08/25/2004 |
1493 |
6034 |
13 (e) |
Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005 |
1488 |
1587 |
08/24/2004 |
1350 |
5632 |
14 |
Withdrawn without prejudice |
1494 |
1627 |
08/24/2004 |
1381 |
5731 |
16 (a) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1495 |
94 |
04/06/2004 |
159 |
718 |
16 (b) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1503 |
438 |
04/14/2004 |
0505 - 0506 |
2145 - 2146 |
17 |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1504 |
439 |
04/14/2004 |
506 |
2147 |
17 |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1506 |
2011 |
08/26/2004 |
1701 |
6437 |
17 |
Withdrawn without prejudice |
1509 |
141 |
04/13/2004 |
255 |
1124 - 1125 |
17 |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
1510 |
142 |
04/13/2004 |
255 |
1126 |
17 |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
1511 |
147 |
04/13/2004 |
0258 - 0259 |
1136 - 1139 |
17 |
Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection |
1512 |
1521 |
06/11/2004 |
1292 |
5457 |
17 |
Withdrawn without prejudice |
1513 |
1999 |
08/26/2004 |
1691 |
6410 |
17 |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1516 |
1995 |
08/26/2004 |
1689 |
6406 |
17 |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1517 |
2047 |
08/26/2004 |
1741 - 1742 |
6548 |
17 |
Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006 |
1552 |
1837 |
08/25/2004 |
1562 |
6150 |
18 (c) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1553 |
1865 |
08/25/2004 |
1584 - 1585 |
6192 |
18 (c) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1555 |
1872 |
08/26/2004 |
1597 |
6209 |
18 (c) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1570 |
1827 |
08/25/2004 |
1548 |
6128 |
18 (d) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1572 |
1829 |
08/25/2004 |
1549 |
6131 |
18 (d) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
1577 |
1855 |
08/25/2004 |
1576 - 1577 |
6177 |
18 (d) |
Withdrawn by moving parties on October 4, 2006 |
1588 |
1928 |
08/26/2004 |
1642 |
6299 |
18 (d) |
Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006 |
Court File No. T-753-99
This is Schedule “D” to the Order of November 24, 2006
No |
Reqstno |
Discdate |
Pageno |
Questno |
15 |
250 |
04/13/2004 |
369 |
1622 |
16 |
251 |
04/13/2004 |
0369 - 0370 |
1623 |
27 |
586 |
04/14/2004 |
571 |
2427 |
50 |
712 |
04/15/2004 |
664 |
2848-2849 |
51 |
713 |
04/15/2004 |
665 |
2850 |
54 |
719 |
04/15/2004 |
0671-672 |
2884-2885 |
57 |
722 |
04/15/2004 |
681 |
2921-2922 |
58 |
723 |
04/15/2004 |
681 |
2923 |
155 |
1860 |
08/25/2004 |
1582 |
6186 |
Court File No. T-753-99
This is Schedule “E” to the Order of November 24, 2006
No |
Reqstno |
Discdate |
Pageno |
Questno |
Category |
|
369 |
04/14/2004 |
0475 – 0476 |
2020 - 2023 |
|
|
426 |
04/14/2004 |
0501 – 0502 |
2120 – 2122 |
|
|
427 |
04/14/2004 |
502 |
2123 – 2125 |
|
34 |
443 |
04/14/2004 |
507 |
2152 |
1 (c) |
35 |
444 |
04/14/2004 |
507 |
2153 |
1 (c) |
47 |
544 |
04/14/2004 |
545 |
2309 - 2310 |
1 (c) |
49 |
546 |
04/14/2004 |
546 |
2312 |
1 (c) |
54 |
573 |
04/14/2004 |
0559 - 0560 |
2370 |
1 (c) |
80 |
400 |
04/14/2004 |
491 |
2080 - 0281 |
2 (a) |
85 |
457 |
04/14/2004 |
0513 - 0514 |
2182 |
2 (a) |
86 |
458 |
04/14/2004 |
514 |
2183 |
2 (a) |
89 |
783 |
04/15/2004 |
702 |
3029-3030 |
2 (a) |
91 |
839 |
04/15/2004 |
0760-0761 |
3310-3312 |
2 (a) |
96 |
1102 |
04/16/2004 |
1017 |
4452 |
2 (a) |
114 |
139 |
04/13/2004 |
254 |
1122 |
2 (b) |
115 |
158 |
04/13/2004 |
274 |
1204 |
2 (b) |
117 |
379 |
04/14/2004 |
481 |
2039 – 2041 |
2 (b) 20 (k) |
129 |
417 |
04/14/2004 |
498 |
2107 |
2 (b) |
133 |
425 |
04/14/2004 |
501 |
2119 |
2 (b) |
135 |
446 |
04/14/2004 |
508 |
2157 |
2 (b) |
144 |
478 |
04/14/2004 |
522 |
2217 |
2 (b) |
146 |
505 |
04/14/2004 |
532 |
2267 - 2268 |
2 (b) |
147 |
506 |
04/14/2004 |
532 |
2269 |
2 (b) |
148 |
507 |
04/14/2004 |
533 |
2270 |
2 (b) |
149 |
508 |
04/14/2004 |
533 |
2271 |
2 (b) |
156 |
1489 |
06/11/2004 |
1262 |
5368 |
2 (b) |
157 |
1490 |
06/11/2004 |
1263 |
5369 - 5370 |
2 (b) |
158 |
1491 |
06/11/2004 |
1263 |
5371 |
2 (b) |
191 |
218 |
04/13/2004 |
324 |
1441 |
2 (d) 20 (k) |
201 |
645 |
04/14/2004 |
616 |
2630 |
2 (d) |
231 |
1086 |
04/16/2004 |
983 |
4304-4306 |
3 (a) |
241 |
1200 |
06/11/2004 |
1089 |
4687 |
3 (a) |
264 |
1364 |
06/11/2004 |
1195 |
5111 |
3 (a) |
302 |
1182 |
06/11/2004 |
1083 |
4658 |
3 (b) |
303 |
1183 |
06/11/2004 |
1083 |
4659 |
3 (b) |
306 |
1186 |
06/11/2004 |
1084 |
4664 - 4665 |
3 (b) |
310 |
1222 |
06/11/2004 |
1098 |
4716 |
3 (b) |
456 |
1580 |
08/24/2004 |
1345 |
5615 |
4 |
459 |
1592 |
08/24/2004 |
1355 |
5652 - 5653 |
4 |
1536 |
1597 |
08/24/2004 |
1358 |
5665 |
18 (b) |
APPENDIX IV
Date: 20060809
Court File No.: T-753-99
Ottawa, Ontario, August 9, 2006
PRESENT: Madam Prothonotary Roza Aronovitch
B E T W E E N:
MERCK & CO., INC. and MERCK FROSST CANADA & CO.
Plaintiffs
- and -
NU-PHARM INC., BERNARD SHERMAN
and RICHARD BENYAK
Defendants
ORDER
(Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Bernard Sherman to Answer
Certain Discovery Questions)
UPON motion by the
plaintiffs for:
1. an order compelling the defendant, Dr. Bernard Sherman ("Sherman"), to answer outstanding undertakings given on his examination for discovery held on April 27-30 and May 3-5, 2004;
2. an order compelling Sherman to answer questions refused on said examination for discovery;
3. an order compelling Sherman to re-attend on discovery to answer further questions, including questions arising out of the answers provided and documents produced in respect of paragraphs 1 and 2 above;
4. an order granting the plaintiffs their costs of this motion; and
5. such further and other relief as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court deem just;
AND UPON this Court directing that the parties address on a preliminary basis the two threshold issues (the "Preliminary Issues") of:
(A) Sherman’s general obligation to inform himself by making inquiries of certain companies controlled by him and of certain third party corporations; and
(B) the relevance of the contents of APO-ENALAPRIL;
AND UPON reviewing the Moving Parties' Motion Record and the Responding Motion Record of Sherman, and upon hearing the submissions of counsel on March 22, 2006, concerning the definition of the Preliminary Issues, and on March 23 and 24, 2006, concerning the Preliminary Issues;
AND UPON this Court having previously found that Sherman controls the Apotex group of companies, and having ordered Sherman to produce certain relevant categories of documents within the power, possession and control of those companies pursuant to Rule 225(a), by Order dated June 24, 2002, including documents related to the composition, formulation and active medicinal ingredient in Apo-Enalapril tablets;
AND UPON hearing the Plaintiffs’ Compliance Motion on March 22-23, 2006, and being advised that Sherman has made inquiries within the Apotex group of companies and has produced documents within the power, possession and control of the Apotex group of companies in response to discovery questions;
ENDORSEMENT
To begin, this endorsement deals with Dr. Sherman’s (“Sherman’s) general discovery obligations pursuant to Rules 240, 241 and 244 and is separate from Sherman’s obligations pursuant to Rule 225(a) and any Order made thereunder.
Essentially, I agree with the submissions made on behalf of Sherman that as a personal defendant being sued in his personal capacity, as a general proposition, he is not required pursuant to Rules 240 and 241 to make inquiries of Apotex, Apotex related companies and other third parties to this proceeding. Sherman is not a corporate discovery representative for these companies. His obligation is to provide his own information or belief, and answer questions on that basis on discovery, (including, of course, information that Sherman has that relates to the third parties that are not party to this action (James River Corp. of Virginia v. Hallmark Cards, Inc. (1997), 72 C.P.R. (3d) 157 (F.C.T.D.)).
Rule 240 is the starting point, requiring a party to answer questions based on its own knowledge, information and belief. Rule 241 expands or qualifies that obligation. To the extent that Rule 241 contemplates discovery of an individual other than the representative of a corporate party, it nevertheless restricts the obligation on the individual being discovered to make inquiries of a present or former officer, servant, agent or employee “of the party” - in this instance, Sherman in his personal capacity.
As to whether any of these corporations may be said to be agents of Sherman, formal agency is a relationship that must be proven. Merck has not adduced evidence on which to base a finding, at this stage, that Apotex or any of its related companies are Sherman’s agents.
I turn to Merck’s argument that Sherman is an “alter ego” of Apotex and companies related to Apotex, and that the “corporate veil” should therefore be lifted and their separate legal status disregarded.
I find no basis for disregarding Sherman’s or third parties’ distinct legal identities. I am not persuaded that the jurisprudence relied on by Merck relating to corporate “alter egos” and the lifting of the corporate veil has application in the circumstances.
The plaintiffs cite the following from Monarch Marking Systems, Inc. v. Esselte Meto Limited, [1984] 1 F.C. 641 (T.D.) “[i]n today’s global environment, Canadian companies may expect to be required to request information from their foreign affiliates”, that “international businesses ought not to be permitted […] to avoid full compliance with the law of Canada in respect of the business they do here”, and that “the corporate veil ought not be permitted to inhibit the administration of justice” (para. 73).
Monarch, as with other cases relied on by the plaintiffs, involves the examination for discovery of a corporate party’s representative - not the situation here.
Indeed, the “corporate veil” doctrine is an uneasy fit in the circumstances. Piercing the corporate veil ordinarily means looking behind the corporation to the individuals who controls it - not as in this case looking “behind” an individual to a corporation(s) he controls. More importantly, the policy consideration in Monarch for piercing the corporate veil has no application in this case. The plaintiffs are not prevented from obtaining information from the third party corporations by reason of the corporate organization of the third parties but rather, due to Merck’s choice not to sue them and Merck’s further choice not to seek relevant information directly from them.
The plaintiffs also rely on Crestbrook Forest Industries Ltd. v. Canada, [1993] 3 F.C. 251 (C.A.) (“Crestbrook”) in support of the proposition that Sherman, because “he exercises effective control over the entire chain”, cannot hide behind the corporate veil of the Apotex Group of Companies or Nu-Pharm in an attempt to avoid compliance with his discovery obligations.
Control, I agree, may be sufficient and determinative in terms of the obligation to produce documents (see Rule 225(a) and the explicit requirement for control as a factor). The corporate veil however is not lightly or easily lifted and more than control is required to prove that a corporation is the alter ego of the owner.
To comment specifically on Crestbrook, this was an appeal from the Associate Senior Prothonotary who had directed an officer of the respondent to inform himself and to provide answers to certain questions put by the appellant during an examination for discovery. Again, distinguishable from the case at bar.
Chief Justice Isaac (Justice Stone and Deputy Judge Craig concurring) framed the issue as follows at p. 264:
[…] the question to be answered in this appeal is whether a corporate party to an action, who is engaged in an international business arrangement with non-resident controlling shareholders, can be required to obtain from those shareholders who are not parties to the action, answers to questions posed during examinations for discovery which are relevant to the issues in dispute. […]
[emphasis added]
Notably, Chief Justice Isaac observed that “[s]ince the action was commenced prior to 1990, this proceeding was governed by the discovery rules as they stood before the amendments already referred to” i.e., “Rule 465” [p. 264].
At the outset of his analysis, Chief Justice Isaac stated at p. 265:
[…] there are some limits on the ambit of the examination, perhaps the most obvious of which is that the Court will not permit the discovery process to be used as a "fishing expedition" (see, e.g., Sperry Corporation v. John Deere Ltd. et al. (1984), 82 C.P.R. (2d) 1 (F.C.T.D.)). For the purposes of this case, however, the relevant limit is that imposed by Rule 465 itself. To repeat, paragraph 15 required that an individual being questioned was to "answer any question as to any fact within the knowledge or means of knowledge" of the party for whom he had been put forward. In my view, this creates an obvious presumption that a party can only be expected to answer questions for which it has an ability to find an answer.
[emphasis added]
Moreover, Chief Justice Isaac observed at p. 269: “This notion -- that as far as Crestbrook was concerned, Honshu and Mitsubishi were one, is supported by the documentary evidence.”
It was against that factual background that Chief Justice Issac held at p. 272 that “Crestbrook was for all intents and purposes the alter ego of Honshu Mitsubishi” and that “the administration of justice requires that the operating minds behind Crestbrook, namely Honshu and Mitsubishi, be obliged to respond to the questions posed by the Crown”.
The following points are worth noting. There is no “documentary evidence” on this motion from which I can conclude that Sherman and Apotex, or related corporations controlled by Sherman “are one” in the sense of the jurisprudence. From a policy perspective, as I have said, it is not Sherman’s use of his “various corporate machinations” that are preventing Merck “from shining the light of discovery” on these activities. Merck is not precluded from having discovery of third parties who have relevant information, if it so wishes.
Finally, Merck, in my view, has placed the proverbial cart before the horse. It cannot work backwards from having made allegations of alter ego, sham corporations, etc. to insisting that Sherman’s obligations on discovery be set by reference to those allegations as though proven.
In sum, in the absence of the words “means of knowledge”, Rule 240, as presently worded, reflects the general rule identified by Justice Walsh in Leesona Corp. v. Snia Viscosa Canada Ltd. (1975), 26 C.P.R. (2d) 136 (F.C.T.D.).
The subsequent case of Risi Stone Ltd. et al. v. Groupe Permacon Inc. (1994), 56 C.P.R. (3d) 381 (F.C.T.D.), which considered former Rule 458 (in substance identical to current Rule 240), confirmed that general rule as Justice Nadon stated at p. 387:
In view of Rule 458, a witness who is subject to examination must only answer questions that are within his or her knowledge and that are relevant to a matter in question in the action. […]
[emphasis added]
Notwithstanding the able arguments of counsel for Merck, I am not persuaded that Sherman’s obligation is broader than as stated above. Thus, for example, having regard to the documents which Sherman has been ordered to produce and has an obligation to produce given his effective control of some of the corporate entities, he need only answer proper questions based on his own information, knowledge and belief in respect of the documents.
As to Rule 244, it is not as Merck suggests unlimited or unconstrained in the obligation it imposes. Rather, it is to be read and understood in the context of Rules 240 and 241.
The Contents of Apo-Enalapril
The contents of Apo-Enalapril and the API in Apo-Enalapril are relevant. While Sherman, on discovery, has stated that the API in Apo-Enalapril is “enalapril maleate” however, he equivocates as to the rest. Questions regarding the contents of Apo-Enalapril not directed exclusively to the API, are relevant and need be answered.
THIS COURT ORDERS that:
1. The defendant Sherman does not have an obligation to make further inquiries in answer to questions asked concerning those corporations controlled by him including (but not limited to) Apotex Inc., Apotex Pharmaceutical Holdings Inc., Apotex Holdings Inc., Brantford Chemicals Inc., Apotex Research Inc., the “Apotex Group of Companies,” and their officers, directors and employees thereof, or concerning third party corporations including Signa S.A. de C.V. and Trillium Health Care Manufacturing Inc.
2. The contents of APO-ENALAPRIL are relevant to matters in issue in this proceeding.
3. Within five (5) days of the issuance of this Order, the Merck plaintiffs shall deliver charts to the defendant Sherman setting out those questions which they believe to have been fully disposed of by virtue of the orders made in each of paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Order. A separate chart shall be delivered in respect of each such paragraph of this Order. For greater certainty, “fully disposed of” means that no other objections have been made by Sherman’s counsel on the record in this motion, other than on the basis of the Preliminary Issues.
4. Sherman shall then have five (5) days to provide the Merck plaintiffs with his position with respect to the charts referred to in paragraph 4 of this Order.
5. The parties shall have a further five (5) days within which to jointly submit to the Court lists of questions that are agreed to have been fully disposed of by virtue of this Order.
6. With respect to questions which have been fully disposed of as a result of the questions ordered to be answered pursuant to paragraph 2 above, the answers shall be provided to the plaintiffs within 75 days of the date of this Order.
7. The Court will hear further submissions at the return of the motion on any questions which the parties are unable to agree have been fully disposed of by virtue of this Order.
8. The costs of this motion will be determined as a whole upon determination of all outstanding questions and issues herein.
“R. Aronovitch”
Prothonotary
APPENDIX “V”
NuPharm Notice of Motion dated October 10, 2006 appealing: |
(1) |
Making Inquiries Order (“MIO”) of
Prothonotary Aronovitch dated August 9, 2006 (36 pages) |
|
(2) |
Refusals Order (“RO”) of Prothonotary
Aronovitch dated August 9, 2006 (18 pages) |
Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion dated October 12, 2006 appealing: |
(3) |
MIO |
|
(4) |
RO |
Benyak Notice of Motion dated October 12, 2006 appealing: |
(5) |
MIO |
|
(6) |
RO |
Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion dated December 4, 2006 appealing: |
(7) |
Order of Prothonotary Aronovitch dated
November 24, 2000 (81 pages) (“November Order”) |
NuPharm Notice of Motion dated December 4, 2006 appealing: |
(8) |
November Order |
Benyak Notice of Motion dated December 4, 2006 appealing: |
(9) |
November Order |
Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion dated October 13, 2006 appealing: |
(10) |
a third Order of Prothonotary Aronovitch dated August 9, 2006, dealing with the defendant Sherman (7 pages) |
|
|
|
FEDERAL COURT
NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-753-99
STYLE OF CAUSE: MERCK & CO. INC. and MERCK FROSST CANADA & CO. and NU-PHARM INC., BERNARD SHERMAN and RICHARD BENYAK
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: April 16, 17, 18, and 19, 2007
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER: Beaudry J.
APPEARANCES:
Andrew J. Reddon FOR PLAINTIFFS
Frank J. McLaughlin
Brian D. Edmonds
Meighan Leon
John Simpson, Nu-Pharm FOR DEFENDANTS
Andrea Burke, B. Sherman
Rocco Di Pucchio, R. Benyak
Ashley Lattal, R. Benyak
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
McCarthy Tétrault LLP FOR PLAINTIFFS
Toronto, Ontario
Goodmans LLP FOR DEFENDANTS
Toronto, Ontario
Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP
Toronto, Ontario
Lax O’Sullivan Scott
Toronto, Ontario