Alphapharm Pty Ltd v Eli Lilly Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) [1996] FCA 645

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION CATCHWORDS PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - discovery - whether further discovery should be ordered - no question of principle. Federal Court Rules O 15 r 8 Mulley v Manifold (1959) 103 CLR 341 ALPHAPHARM PTY LIMITED v ELI LILLY AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (NO 3) No NG 432 of 1996 Lindgren J Sydney 30 July 1996

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY) No NG 432 of 1996 GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: ALPHAPHARM PTY LIMITED (ACN 002 359 739) Applicant AND: ELI LILLY AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 000 233 882) Respondent CORAM: Lindgren J PLACE: Sydney DATE: 30 July 1996 MINUTE OF ORDERS THE COURT ORDERS: 1. THAT the proceeding be listed on 2 August 1996 at 9.30 am for the making of orders in conformity with the Reasons for Judgment of Lindgren J published on 30 July 1996. 2. THAT by 5.00 pm on 31 July 1996 the parties supply to the Associate to Lindgren J an agreed form of short minutes of the orders to be made pursuant to order 1, and failing agreement by that time and date, the forms of short minutes of the orders to be made pursuant to order 1 for which they will respectively contend.

NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY) No NG 432 of 1996 GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: ALPHAPHARM PTY LIMITED (ACN 002 359 739) Applicant AND: ELI LILLY AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 000 233 882) Respondent CORAM: Lindgren J PLACE: Sydney DATE: 30 July 1996

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (No 3) INTRODUCTION By notice of motion filed on 12 July 1996 the applicant ("Alphapharm") seeks, relevantly, an order pursuant to O 15 r 8 of the Federal Court Rules that the respondent ("Eli Lilly") give discovery of documents identified in a schedule to the notice of motion ("the Schedule") by filing and serving a verified supplementary list of documents. The schedule comprises 14 paragraphs in each of which a class of documents was described. For various reasons, the hearing concerned only paras 9, 10, 11 and 13 (a) which were as follows: "9 Documents recording or relating to reports or claims by pharmacists, hospitals, medical practitioners, psychologists or patients of adverse reactions to Prozac, Prozac Liquid or Lovan, whether reported to the relevant regulatory authorities or not; 10 Documents, including minutes of meetings, instructions, sales manuals and training manuals, issued to, and correspondence with, the respondent's: (a) employees or representatives; (b) agents; (c) wholesalers; or (d) distributors; since 1 January 1996 in relation to either Prozac or Prozac Liquid and either Lovan or Zactin; 11 Other documents created since 1 January 1996 recording or relating to promotional or educational material referring to either Prozac or Prozac Liquid and either Lovan or Zactin; 12 .............................................. 13 All internal documents and correspondence between the respondent and its parent company since 30 June 1995 regarding marketing strategies for dealing with competition from: (a) Zactin; ..."