Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

MEDINOL v. BOSTON SCI. CORP.

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

October 24, 2002, Decided ; October 28, 2002, Filed

01 Civ. 2881 (AKH)

Opinion

 [*113] OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER

ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN, U.S.D.J.:

Defendant's motion for reconsideration of my order of June 4, 2002, ordering production of the minutes of meetings of the Special Litigation Committee of Boston Scientific Corporation, is denied. I have again reviewed counsels' arguments and briefs, and I adhere to my decision.

 [*114]  I. Background

A. Facts

Plaintiff, Medinol, Ltd., is an Israeli company engaged in biotechnology.  [**3]  It alleges that it developed a stent for heart and arterial implants and licensed distribution rights and limited back-up manufacturing rights to Boston Scientific Corporation ("Boston Scientific" or "BSC"). Medinol claims that Boston Scientific abused its position as licensee to create its own, secret alternative sources of supply, and filed this suit against Boston Scientific to obtain equitable and legal relief. The parties have since been engaged in extensive discovery proceedings.

It appears that certain practices of Boston Scientific and its executives with regard to the stent caused its directors to terminate a number of high-ranking employees, to engage counsel to perform an investigation, and to report about that investigation and its results to a Special Litigation Committee of the Board. Minutes were taken of a meeting, or meetings, of the Committee, and shown to the Company's outside public accountants, Ernst & Young, in connection with their audit of the Company's litigation exposures. The issue that I decided, and which I am now asked to reconsider, is whether the sharing of such information, developed by the Company's counsel and shared with accountants, waives privilege.

 [**4]  B. Boston Scientific's Arguments

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

214 F.R.D. 113 *; 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20611 **

MEDINOL, LTD., Plaintiff, -against-BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, PETER M. NICHOLAS, MICHAEL BERMAN, LAWRENCE C. BEST, JAMES M. CORBETT, JANET M. KELLEY, PAUL A. LAVIOLETTE, STEPHEN R. PAIDOSH, ARTHUR L. ROSENTHAL, PAUL W. SANDMAN, Defendants.

Subsequent History: Motion to strike granted by, in part, Motion to strike denied by, in part, Summary judgment granted, in part, summary judgment denied, in part by, Claim dismissed by Medinol Ltd. v. Boston Sci. Corp., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24091 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 2, 2004)

Disposition:  [**1]  Motion for reconsideration of order to produce documents, denied.

CORE TERMS

disclosure, auditor, work product doctrine, work product, waived, independent auditor, minutes, audit, privacy, sharing, work product privilege, attorney-client, meetings, parties

Civil Procedure, Privileged Communications, Work Product Doctrine, Waiver of Protections, Evidence, Privileges, Attorney-Client Privilege, Waiver, General Overview, Government Privileges, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Securities Law, Recordkeeping & Reporting Requirements, Issuers of Securities, Civil Liability Considerations, Disclosures