Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Shire Development Inc. v. Cadila Healthcare Limited (d/b/a Zydus Cadila), C.A. No. 10-581-KAJ (D. Del. Oct. 19, 2012)

Shire Development Inc. v. Cadila Healthcare Limited (d/b/a Zydus Cadila), C.A. No. 10-581-KAJ (D. Del. Oct. 19, 2012)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 649|Likes:
Published by YCSTBlog

More info:

Published by: YCSTBlog on Oct 31, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

03/24/2014

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE SHIRE DEVELOPMENT INC., SHIRE )PHARMACEUTICAL DEVELOPMENT, )INC., COSMO TECHNOLOGIES )LIMITED, and GIULIANI )INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, )Civil Action
No.1
0-581 (KAJ))Plaintiffs,
))
v.))CADILA HEALTHCARE LIMITED )(d/b/a ZYDUS CADILA) and ZYDUS
)
PHARMACEUTICALS (USA) INC.,
))
Defendants.)
MEMORANDUM ORDER
At Wilmington this
19th
day
of
October, 2012,
Before me
is
the issue
of
whether the internal communications
of
Defendant Cadila Healthcare Limited ("Cadila") with Mr. NSV Raju, an employee
of
Cadila who
is
trained
in
the law and heads the department that "functions
as
Cadila'sinternal legal department for patent issues" (D.I. 228, at 2), are subject to attorney-clientprivilege under the laws
of
India. Because the parties presented diametrically opposedexpert reports on this difficult question, I appointed, in consultation with the parties, aneutral expert, Justice B.N. Srikrishna, former Justice
of
the Supreme Court
of
India, toopine on the issue.
See
Fed.
R.
Civ.
P.
44.1
e'ln
determining foreign law, the court may
Case 1:10-cv-00581-KAJ Document 232 Filed 10/19/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 2035
 
consider any relevant material or source, including testimony, whether or not submittedby a party
or
admissible under the Federal Rules
of
Evidence."); Fed.
R.
Evid. 706(permitting court to appointed experts). Having reviewed the parties' severalsubmissions on the issue, including their expert reports and the cases cited therein, aswell as Justice Srikrishna's report and follow-up questioning by the parties, I now makemy ruling.Justice Srikrishna opined that communications between an employee likeMr. Raju and his employer are not privileged under the laws
of
India.
(See
Report
of
Justice B.N. Srikrishna, D.L 209.) Despite Defendants' concerted efforts to underminethe reasons Justice Srikrishna gave for that conclusion, I am satisfied that his opinion
is
thoughtful, well-grounded, and persuasive. I therefore adopt it
as
my
own, for thereasons he expressed therein, and conclude that, under the laws
of
India, attorney-clientprivilege does not attach to communications between a legally trained corporateemployee and his employer.In so ruling, I also conclude that Special Master Joshua
W.
Martin, III,Esq., should revisit his Report and Recommendation regarding Defendants' assertion
of
attorney-client privilege based on Mr. Raju's internal communications at Cadila.It
is
therefore ORDERED that the communications at issue, being betweenMr. NSV Raju and his employer, are not subject to attorney-client privilege, and it
is
FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall confer with the Special Master to determine2 
Case 1:10-cv-00581-KAJ Document 232 Filed 10/19/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 2036

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->