The opinion of the court was delivered by: Roanne L. Mann, United States Magistrate Judge
By letter dated March 26, 2009, plaintiff State of Connecticut ("the State") seeks an order compelling defendant Eli Lilly & Company ("Lilly") to produce documents in response to the State's Second Set of Requests for Production.*fn1 See 3/26/09 Pl. Letter, at 1. Lilly opposes the State's motion, contending that the State's requests are overly broad, untimely, and in violation of this Court's prior orders. See Letter from Anthony Vale, Counsel for Lilly, to the Court (Mar. 30, 2009) ("3/30/09 Def. Letter"), D.E. # 200, at 1-2. This Court agrees.
Accordingly, and for the reasons that follow, the State's motion is denied, except to the limited extent described below.
I. Requests Outside the Scope of CMO 1
When discovery commenced in this case, the Court, after extensive briefing and oral argument, entered Case Management Order ("CMO") 1, setting forth the parties' respective discovery obligations. See CMO 1, D.E. # 41. The State is correct that CMO 1 was not intended set absolute limits upon discovery. Nevertheless, CMO 1 did impose certain limitations, which some of the State's document demands blithely ignore.
Specifically, the State has requested (1) documents produced to the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") and/or the United States Attorney's Office in connection with federal investigations into Lilly's marketing of Zyprexa; and (2) documents reflecting communications between Lilly and the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") subsequent to the Zyprexa label change in October 2007. See State's Second Set of Requests for Production Nos. 15 & 16. The Court ruled on these issues in CMO 1, and the States' demands fall well outside the scope of what was permitted in the Court's prior ruling. See CMO 1, D.E. # 41, at 2.
Furthermore, with respect to documents relating to the DOJ investigation, this Court on other occasions denied similar requests, both in this case and in a related Zyprexa case brought by the State of West Virginia;*fn2 the State's pending request is not materially distinguishable from those requests. And with respect to communications between Lilly and the FDA following the Zyprexa label change in October 2007, this Court has repeatedly limited discovery on that subject to documents dated through October 2007 and/or relating to the October 2007 change.*fn3 Nevertheless, despite this Court's prior rulings, the State continues to relitigate these issues.
Accordingly, the State's requests for production numbered 15 and 16 are denied. The State, on pain of sanctions, shall refrain from making any further requests of this nature.
The State has also requested Zyprexa-related marketing materials distributed by Lilly to the United States Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS"). See State's Second Set of Requests for Production No. 4. In the State's view, "Lilly documents acknowledge that influencing one governmental or public payor program affects many others." Letter from Thomas M. Sobol, Counsel for the State, to the Court (Mar. 31, 2009) ("3/31/09 Pl. Letter"), D.E. # 204, Ex. A, at 3. Following that logic, however, the State would be entitled to discover not only marketing materials distributed to HHS, but marketing materials distributed to analogous agencies in all 50 states.
The State made a similar request, nearly one year ago, prior to the entry of CMO 1. See State's Proposed CMO 1 (May 9, 2008), D.E. # 18, at 4 (requesting "[a]ll documents concerning communications with any government offices . . . .") (emphasis added). As is apparent from CMO 1, the Court, having balanced the interests, rejected that request. See CMO 1, D.E # 41, at 1 ("Lilly shall expeditiously identify and produce documents . . . that reflect interactions with the P[harmacy] &T[herapeutics] Committee and/or the State's Medicaid agency."). Moreover, the State has already obtained exhaustive discovery on this issue, including call notes and other documents in the possession of Lilly sales representatives, depositions of those representatives, P&T Committee related discovery, and marketing materials directed towards the State -- all on top of the millions of pages of documents already produced by Lilly in connection with the Zyprexa MDL.
This case concerns Lilly's alleged illegal marketing activities directed towards agencies of the State of Connecticut, not agencies of the United States. Accordingly, the State's request for production numbered 4 is denied.
II. Requests Related to Lilly Sales Representatives
Two of the State's requests seek documents relating to Lilly sales representatives. See Second Set of Requests for Production Nos. 6 & 10. Like the requests discussed above, these requests largely exceed the ...