|This document is available in two formats: this web page (for browsing content) and PDF (comparable to original document formatting). To view the PDF you will need Acrobat Reader, which may be downloaded from the Adobe site. For an official signed copy, please contact the Antitrust Documents Group.|
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
1. On June 15, 2000, the undersigned counsel for Plaintiff telephoned Edward Soto, counsel for American, and informed him that ASTA had refused to consent to Plaintiff's disclosure of certain materials produced by ASTA in connection with CID No. 12482.
2. Plaintiff's counsel described the materials at issue, which consist of a privilege log prepared in connection with ASTA's response to CID No. 12482, responses to the two interrogatories posed by CID No. 12482, and internal drafts and analyses relating to a 1994 survey of commission overrides and incentives conducted by ASTA and produced in response to one of the two document requests contained in CID No. 12482.
3. Plaintiff's counsel explained that, in the absence of ASTA's consent, we had determined that Plaintiff could not disclose the CID materials at issue. Plaintiff's counsel asked whether Defendants, based on the general description of the CID materials and knowing that ASTA had refused to consent to their disclosure, intended to insist that the United States produce those materials.
4. Mr. Soto indicated that there was a conference call scheduled for later that afternoon among the various attorneys representing American, and that he would raise the issue at that conference call.
5. On June 16, 2000, Mr. Soto informed Plaintiff's counsel, Renata B. Hesse, that American believed it was entitled to all ASTA CID materials retained by Plaintiff, whether ASTA had granted or denied its consent to the disclosure of such materials.
PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES