Date: 20070523

Docket: T-753-99

Citation: 2007 FC 537

Ottawa, Ontario, May 23, 2007

PRESENT:     The Honourable Mr. Justice Beaudry

 

BETWEEN:

MERCK & CO., INC. and

MERCK FROSST CANADA & CO.

Plaintiffs

and

 

NU-PHARM INC., BERNARD SHERMAN

AND RICHARD BENYAK

Defendants

 

REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

 

[1]               These reasons follow the hearings on April 16, 17, 18 and 19, 2007, at Toronto, of seven motions, brought pursuant to Rule 35(2)(b), Federal Court Rules (the Rules), SOR/98-106, in appeal from four Orders of Prothonotary Aronovitch, as set out in the following sequence:

a)      First Order (Making Inquiries Order) dated August 9, 2006, Appendix “I”;

b)      Second Order (the August Refusals Order) dated August 9, 2006, Appendix “II”;

c)      Third Order (the November Order) dated November 24, 2006 attached as Appendix “III” to these reasons; and

d)      Fourth Order (the Sherman Order) dated August 9, 2006, attached as Appendix “IV” to these reasons.

 

[2]               Originating from parties on both sides, the seven motions consist of a total of ten appeals of the four Orders by Prothonotary Aronovitch that deal with matters in dispute at the discovery stage of this longstanding patent infringement action, Appendix “V” attached to these reasons provides a chronology of the present motions.

 

[3]               One of the motions in appeal (the first motion), was brought by the defendant Nu-Pharm Inc. (Nu-Pharm), on October 10, 2006 and seeks to set aside certain parts of two Orders dated August 9, 2006:

a)      the Making Inquiries Order (Appeal #1), pursuant to which Nu-Pharm was ordered to make inquiries of various non-parties to this action; and

b)      the August Refusals Order (Appeal #2), in which Nu-Pharm was ordered to answer certain questions refused on examination for discovery of its representative, Mr. Benyak.

 

[4]               The second motion in appeal (the second motion), was brought by the Plaintiffs Merck & Co., Inc. and Merck Frosst Canada & Co. (Merck) on October 12, 2006 and seeks to set aside parts of two Orders dated August 9, 2006:

a)      the Making Inquiries Order (Appeal #3), in which Prothonotary Aronovitch ruled that the Defendants, Nu-Pharm and Mr. Richard Benyak (Benyak) need not otherwise make inquires of certain third parties, including Apotex Inc. (including its Novex Pharma division), Brantford, Signa and Trillium; and

 

b)      the August Refusals Order (Appeal #4), in which Prothonotary Aronovitch limited the nature and extent of inquiries that Nu-Pharm can make of non-parties including the above-mentioned third parties and certain former employees, including Van Doornik, Beyger, Culp and Saban. The August Refusals Order also gave effect to claims of solicitor/client privilege and ordered that Nu-Pharm and Benyak did not have to answer 17 additional questions proffered by Merck.

 

[5]               The third motion in appeal (the third motion) was brought by Benyak on October 12, 2006 and seeks to set aside certain portions of both the Making Inquiries Order (Appeal #5), and the August Refusals Order (Appeal #6), for the same reasons sought by Nu-Pharm in its motion to set aside the impugned portions of both Orders, as noted above in the first motion.

 

[6]               The fourth motion in appeal (the fourth motion) was brought by Merck on December 4, 2006 (Appeal #7), and seeks to set aside the November Order of Prothonotary Aronovitch, in which she ordered that Nu-Pharm and Benyak need not make any inquiries or requests for documents from Beyger, Culp, Van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium or Saban beyond any previously ordered and stood down certain questions contained in Schedule “E” to the Order, where these questions involve inquiries of the aforementioned persons, until the results of the inquiries and requests previously ordered are known. In other words, the Defendants Nu-Pharm and Benyak, do not have to make further inquiries beyond those permitted under Rule 241 have been provided.

 

[7]               The fifth motion in appeal (the fifth motion) was brought by Nu-Pharm, on December 4, 2006 (Appeal #8), and seeks to set aside parts of the November Order of Prothonotary Aronovitch, in which she ordered that Nu-Pharm and Benyak respond to certain questions. Nu-Pharm also seeks to set aside the awarding of costs to Merck, at the high end of Column V of Tariff B.

 

[8]               The sixth motion in appeal (the sixth motion) was brought by Benyak (Appeal #9) on December 4, 2006, who seeks to set aside that part of the November Order, which orders him to answer certain questions refused on his examination for discovery. In addition, Benyak seeks to reverse the award of costs to Merck in relation to the November Order.

 

[9]               Finally, the seventh motion in appeal (the seventh motion) was brought by Merck (Appeal #10) on October 13, 2006, and seeks to set aside parts of the Sherman Order of Prothonotary Aronovitch dated August 9, 2006, wherein she ruled that Defendant Dr. Bernard Sherman (Sherman) does not have to make inquiries of corporations controlled by him and employees thereof.

 

I.          BACKGROUND

[10]           This action was commenced by Statement of Claim dated April 29, 1999. Merck alleges that in light of their non-arms length relationship with Apotex Inc. (Apotex), which was found to have infringed Merck’s exclusive patent interest in the Canadian Patent Number 1,275,349 (the ‘349 Patent), the defendants created an elaborate diversion scheme, in order to circumvent the permanent injunction rendered against Apotex by Justice W. Andrew MacKay in the 1994 decision of Merck & Co. v. Apotex Inc., [1994] F.C.J. No. 1898 (F.C.T.D.) (QL), and thereby brought to market the infringing product (Apo-Enalapril) under a new name, Nu-Enalapril. It is Merck’s position that Nu-Enalapril tablets are not only identical to Apo-Enalapril tablets, as indicated by Nu-Pharm in its materials filed with the Court (File No. T-2552-97), but it also infringes the claims in the ‘349 Patent because it is an enalapril or an enalapril maleate, the generic name of the chemical compounds that constitute the fundamental claims of the ‘349 Patent.

 

[11]           In order to test and prove its theory of the case, Merck has sought through discoveries to fit together the various elements of the sodium-enalapril non-infringing scheme, which involves not only Apotex’s principal, the defendant Dr. Bernard Sherman, but also Nu-Pharm, Apotex’s sister company and its President Benyak, in both their personal and corporate capacities. To get to the bottom of the composition and manufacture of Nu-Enalapril, essential elements of the issue in action, Merck has sought to question not only the defendants but to have them make inquiries and produce documents from those such as former and present employees of Nu-Pharm, its suppliers and manufacturers, who also are intimately related to Apotex within the Sherman Group of companies.

 

[12]           Merck wants to establish that Nu-Enalapril does indeed infringe the ‘349 Patent. It wants also to adduce evidence by way of discoveries to assemble the essential elements required to pierce the corporate veil behind which, Merck argues, Sherman, the directing mind of Apotex, uses Nu-Pharm as Apotex’s alter ego, a sham, in other words, to shield his sophisticated strategy of subterfuge to circumvent the permanent injunction granted by Justice MacKay in 1994.

 

[13]           For their part, the defendants vigorously defend Merck’s claims of infringement on the basis that the subject claims in the ‘349 Patent are either invalid on the stated grounds, or do not encompass Nu-Pharm’s enalapril formulation as contained in Nu-Enalapril. Nu-Pharm also commenced a Counterclaim challenging the validity of the ‘349 Patent, seeking declaratory relief to in effect declare void the ‘349 Patent.

 

[14]           On March 7, 2000, Merck won a contempt of Court application against Apotex for continuing to sell Apo-Enalapril in spite of the permanent injunction. In that decision, Merck & Co. v. Apotex Inc. (2000), 5 C.P.R. (4th) 1, Justice MacKay held as follows at paragraphs 40 and 41:

[40]      In my opinion, it is beyond a reasonable doubt that both Apotex by its officers, and Dr. Sherman in his personal capacity, committed contempt by selling, and in Dr. Sherman's case by authorizing the selling, of Apo-Enalapril product after Dr. Sherman had read the Reasons for Judgment dated December 14, 1994, which indicated that as of that day the Court had resolved that Merck was entitled to a permanent injunction prohibiting Apotex by its officers, and others, from infringing upon the valid claims of Merck's patent.

 

[41]      It is urged for Dr. Sherman that he not be found personally in contempt. Yet he was the "directing mind" of Apotex, it was his decision about the effect of the Reasons for Judgment on December 14 that led to sales of Apo- Enalapril on the following two days, just as it was his decision to stop sales finally on the 16th of December. He knew and had read the Reasons for Judgment and his decisions were the key to conduct of Apotex officers and staff. In my opinion he committed contempt, as did the corporate defendant.

 

[15]           On July 13, 2001, Merck was granted leave by Prothonotary Aronovitch to commence a Third Party Action naming Apotex Pharmaceuticals Holdings Inc. (APHI) and Apotex, as Third Parties by Counterclaim. In its Reply and Defence to Counterclaim, Merck pleaded that Nu-Pharm’s Counterclaim was an abuse of process, since Nu-Pharm’s right to seek a declaration of invalidity was barred on the grounds of res judicata and issue estoppel. Nu-Pharm subsequently discontinued its Counterclaim (Discontinuance dated August 27, 2001).

 

[16]           On November 19, 2001, Merck moved for an Order that the Third Party Claim against APHI and Apotex continue, despite the discontinuance of Nu-Pharm’s Counterclaim. In the alternative, Merck sought an Order adding APHI and Apotex as defendants to the within action, or an Order that would result in APHI and Apotex being named as defendants to a new action to be consolidated with the within action. On February 18, 2002, Prothonotary Aronovitch denied Merck’s motion.

 

[17]           In its Amended Amended Fresh as Amended Reply (Reply) dated December 31, 2002, Merck specifically denied that any of the claims in the ‘349 Patent were invalid, and stated that Nu-Pharm and the individual defendants were bound by the permanent injunction issued against Apotex by Justice MacKay in 1994.

 

[18]           By Order dated June 24, 2002, Prothonotary Aronovitch found that Sherman controls the Apotex group of companies, and ordered Sherman to deliver further and better affidavits of documents listing all documents in their power, possession and control, including in the case of Sherman, those in the power, possession and control of the “Apotex group of companies” and produce such documents, unexpurgated, in respect of the following, subject to any claims of privilege. This list of relevant categories of documents to be produced within the power, possession and control of those companies pursuant to Rule 225(a), included documents related to the composition, formulation and active medicinal ingredient in Apo-Enalapril tablets.

 

[19]           At the hearings of the Plaintiffs’ Compliance Motion held March 22-23, 2006, the Court was advised that Sherman has made inquiries within the Apotex group of companies and has produced documents within the power, possession and control of the Apotex group of companies in response to discovery questions, including the admission that the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) in the allegedly infringing Nu-Enalapril is “enalapril maleate.” However, Prothonotary Aronovitch held in her Fourth Order that Sherman equivocated as to the rest of the contents of the Nu-Enalapril tablets, information that is relevant and needed to be answered.

 

[20]           Consequently, Merck brought a motion for an order compelling the defendant, Sherman to answer outstanding undertakings given on his examination for discovery held on April 27-30 and May 3-5, 2004; to answer questions refused on said examination for discovery; and to re-attend on discovery to answer further questions, including questions arising out of the answers provided and documents produced in respect of his undertakings and responses to outstanding questions. Merck also sought costs.

 

[21]           In addition, Merck brought similar motions for orders compelling the defendants Nu-Pharm and Benyak to answer the undertakings given on the examination for discovery of Benyak, in his corporate and individual capacity, held on April 6, 13, 14, 15 and 16, June 11, August, 24, 25, and 26, 2004 and March 4, 2005; to answer discovery questions refused by Benyak; to answer discovery questions asked by way of written interrogatory; to re-attend on discovery to answer further questions, including questions arising out of the answers provided and documents produced in respect of the above matters; and an order granting Merck its costs of the motion.

 

[22]           The above referenced motions were heard in part, in Toronto, over the course of eight hearing days held April 11, June 5, 6, 12, 13, October 18, 19, and 20, 2006. Among others, Prothonotary Aronovitch rendered three Orders on August 9, 2006 and a fourth on November 24, 2006. They form the object of the present ten appeals.

 

II.        PERTINENT LEGISLATION

[23]           The guiding principles of the Rules of Discovery are delineated in Rule 3, which provides as follows:

 

[24]           Rules 233 and 238(1) make provision for the production of any document from and examination of a non party to the action respectively, as described below:

 

[25]           The scope and procedures for examinations for discovery in matters before the Federal Courts are set out in Rules 240 to 244 of the Rules, which provide as follows:

 

[26]           The discretionary powers of the Courts with respect to the awarding of costs between parties are set out in Rule 400. The relevant passages are provided below:

 

[27]           The Sherman Order raises the question of the obligations of an individual and any corporation that may be controlled directly or indirectly by the individual. Rule 225(a) outlines the options for an Order for disclosure. It states as follows:

 

[28]           Interpretation of statutes including the Federal Courts Rules is guided by the provision in section 12 of the Interpretation Act :

III.       ANALYSIS

[29]           These reasons follow the order in which the parties made their submissions, starting with the motions of Nu-Pharm brought on October 10, 2006. The motion by Merck against the August 9, 2006 Order with regard to the defendant Sherman is dealt with last.

 

A)        THE MAKING OF INQUIRIES ORDER DATED AUGUST 9, 2006

[30]           Upon motion of the Plaintiffs, Merck, to compel defendants Nu-Pharm and Benyak to answer the undertakings given and answer discovery questions refused on the examination for discovery of Benyak, in his corporate and individual capacity, Prothonotary Aronovitch ordered among other things that Nu-Pharm and Benyak will make inquiries of Joseph Beyger, Antony van Doornik and Dawn Culp, and will request of each of Apotex Inc. (including its Novex Pharma division), Brantford, Signa and Trillium that they produce to Nu-Pharm and Benyak relevant documents, whereby said requests are subject to reasonable limits, but Nu-Pharm and Benyak need not otherwise make inquiries of them. It is this aspect of the Making of Inquiries Order that attracted motions of appeal not only from Nu-Pharm and Benyak but also from Merck.

 

i)          Standard of Review

[31]           Where a decision of a Prothonotary is discretionary, the standard of review to be applied by the Federal Court judge is set out by the Federal Court of Appeal in Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd., [1993] 2 F.C. 425 at 462-65 (C.A.). This standard of review was approved by the Supreme Court of Canada in Z.I. Pompey Industrie v. ECU-Line N.V., [2003] 1. S.C.R. 450 at paragraph 18, and later slightly modified by the Federal Court of Appeal and slightly reformulated by Justice Robert Décary in Merck & Co.  v. Apotex Inc., 2003 FCA 488, [2004] 2 F.C.R. 459 (F.C.A.) at paragraph 19:

 

19.       […] Discretionary orders of Prothonotaries ought not be disturbed on appeal to a judge unless:

 

a)         the questions raised in the motion are vital to the final issue of the case, or

 

b)         the orders are clearly wrong, in the sense that the exercise of discretion by the prothonotary was based upon a wrong principle or upon a misapprehension of the facts.

 

[32]           See also Merck & Co. v. Apotex Inc., 2003 FCA 438, [2003] F.C.J. No. 1725 (F.C.A.) (QL) where Justice Barry L. Strayer held as follows at paragraph 9:

9.     It is common ground that when a motions judge hears an appeal from a prothonotary, assuming that no questions vital to the final issue of the case are involved, the reviewing judge can only exercise his or her own discretion in place of the prothonotary's if he or she concludes that the exercise of discretion by the prothonotary "was based upon a wrong principle or upon a misapprehension of facts ...". (Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd. [1993] 2 F.C. 425 at para. 95) F.C.A. In the present case the question for this Court is whether the prothonotary's decision was based upon a wrong principle. If so, the learned motions judge should have set it aside and exercised his own discretion.

 

[33]           I adopt the formulation of my colleague Justice Frederick E. Gibson in Apotex Inc. v. Wellcome Foundation Ltd., 2007 FC 236, [2007] F.C.J. No. 344 (F.C.) (QL), who dealt with multiple motions on appeal of multiple orders as is the case here. He said at paragraph 15:

[…] the orders under review should not be interfered with unless the learned Prothonotary's decisions of either of them were or was clearly wrong in the sense that the exercise of discretion by the Prothonotary was based upon a wrong principle or upon a misapprehension of the facts.

 

[34]           So too, I shall not interfere with discretionary decisions of Prothonotary Aronovitch unless her decisions are clearly wrong in the sense that the exercise of her discretion was based on a wrong principle or upon a misapprehension of the facts.

 

ii)         The Nu-Pharm Appeal of the Making of Inquiries Order

[35]           In its motion on appeal from parts of the Making of Inquiries Order, Nu-Pharm submits that the Prothonotary erred in determining that Nu-Pharm should be required to make inquiries of non-parties to the action or of former employees in respect of their activities subsequent to their employment at Nu-Pharm. Furthermore, Nu-Pharm has not appealed those rulings in the Making Inquiries Order that require Nu-Pharm to make inquiries of its former employees, Mr. Doornik, Mr. Beyger and Ms. Culp, that relate solely to their activities while they were employed by Nu-Pharm. Consequently, Merck improperly seeks to have Nu-Pharm make inquiries of persons (individuals and corporations) who are not parties to the action and over whom it has neither power nor control, including the following:

(a)        Apotex (and “anyone at Apotex”);

 

(b)        Signa, which Nu-Pharm never had a relationship with “[p]rior to working with Signa on Nu-Enalapril”, and which Merck acknowledges is at least one “generation removed from” Mr. Benyak (and thus, Nu-Pharm):

 

2944 Q.  […] I want to know the details of the substance involved.

 

MR. RADOMSKI:  But you'll get that from Signa.

 

MR. EDMONDS:  Maybe I won't, maybe I will.  Signa suppliers are another generation removed from Mr. Benyak.

 

MR. RADOMSKI:  Sorry, Signa?

 

MR. EDMONDS:  Signa suppliers is an entire another generation removed from Mr. Benyak.

 

Benyak Transcript, April 15, 2004 pp. 677, 686-7, Q. 2907, 2944

 

(c)        Novex Pharma (a division of Apotex) (“Novex”);

 

Benyak Transcript, April 6, 2004, p. 21, Q. 66 and p. 85, Q. 326

 

(d)       A number of former employees of Nu-Pharm, who not only   left Nu-Pharm to go to Novex (a non-party to the proceeding), but have also since left Novex; or who are, for the reasons stated, otherwise unavailable to Nu-Pharm:

 

(i)                  Mr. Beyer: He is no longer employed with Novex Pharma, much less Nu-Pharm.  Neither Mr. Benyak nor, to his knowledge, anyone at Nu-Pharm, have any contact information for Mr. Beyger.

 

(ii)                Mr. van Doornik: When asked if Mr. van Doornik was “still at Novex Pharma”, Mr. Benyak stated, “I think he’s retired now.  I haven’t talked to him in a long time so I don’t know”, and further advised that his current contact details were with Novex – Mr. Benyak would have to look up his home phone number in the phone book.

 

(iii)               Ms. Culp: Formerly of Apotex, but no longer employed there.

 

(iv)              Mr. Hems: Merck’s counsel advises that Mr. Hems was (at least formerly) with Apotex; Mr. Benyak testified that he does not know Mr. Hems.

 

(v)                Ms. Knott: A former secretary to Mr. Benyak, who is no longer with him; Mr. Benyak testified that she is “out west”, and he has “no idea where she is.”

 

Benyak transcript, April 13, 2004 p. 241, Q. 1064; p. 280, Q. 1223; p. 281, Q. 1230-1232; p. 292, Q. 1279; p. 298, Q. 1323

Benyak transcript, April 15, 2004 p. 751, Q. 3248-3252

 

(e)        Brantford Chemicals Inc.

Benyak transcript, April 15, 2004 p. 780, Q. 3399

 

(f)         Trillium Health Care Manufacturing Inc., a supplier which manufactured Nu-Enalapril tablets for Nu-Pharm.

 

Benyak transcript, April 13, 2004, p. 250, Q. 1106-1107

 

[36]           Finally, Nu-Pharm states that by her erroneous Order, Prothonotary Aronovitch allows Merck to do indirectly what it could do directly. Merck could itself obtain the information it currently seeks to have Nu-Pharm obtain from non-parties by:  (i) seeking leave to join one or more parties to the action; (ii) beginning another action, and seeking leave to consolidate it with the within action; (iii) seeking leave to examine a non-party; or (iv) seeking an Order for production from a non-party. Consequently, Nu-Pharm submits that the Prothonotary erred in ruling that Nu-Pharm should be required to make the inquiries of non-parties to the action set out in Schedule “A” attached to the Order of August 9, 2006.

 

[37]           For its part, Merck rejects the notion that Nu-Pharm should not be allowed to make inquiries of its former employees even with respect to their work after they left Nu-Pharm, since their work both for and on behalf of Nu-Pharm while they were employed at Novex Pharm, is particularly relevant to the broad pleadings, which allege that not only the former employees but also the corporations have worked in consort to circumvent the permanent Court injunction and persist in its infringement of the ‘349 Patent.

 

[38]           After having held the impugned Making of Inquires Order to the light of the submissions of Merck and Nu-Pharm, I conclude that Prothonotary Aronovitch was called upon to make a discretionary decision. That decision was not wrong. Prothonotary Aronovitch did not base her assessment on a wrong principle nor did she fall prey to a misapprehension of the facts. In my view, she paid due respect to the facts in issue and was mindful of the close ongoing collaboration between certain of the Novex Pharm employees and their former employer Nu-Pharm, all the while working on behalf of Apotex. That is why I shall dismiss Nu-Pharm’s motion appealing the Making of Inquiries Order dated August 9, 2006.

 

iii)         The Merck Appeal of the Making of Inquiries Order

[39]           Merck appeals the Making Inquiries Order because in its view, the Prothonotary erred in law in failing to find that Apotex was Nu-Pharm’s agent when its employees were so acting. Also, Merck argues that the Prothonotary erred in law in failing to order further inquiries pursuant to Rule 244.

 

[40]           In response, Nu-Pharm and Benyak assert that Prothonotary Aronovitch did not err by rejecting the request to order further inquiries pursuant to Rule 244 as the parties in question are non-parties who do not fall within the scope of individuals referred to in Rule 241. Moreover, Prothonotary Aronovitch did not establish that the former employees were agents of Nu-Pharm. She characterized them as follows: 

In the particular circumstances of this case, I find as well that van Doornik and Beyger may be said to be akin to agents in respect of their areas of responsibility while at Novex Pharma. […]

 

 

[41]           The respondents argue that there is a noted distinction between being something and being “akin” to being something. The two are not the same. Consequently, there is no foundation for Merck’s argument that Apotex, as Van Doornik’s, Beyger’s and Culp’s employer, was also an agent for Nu-Pharm.

 

[42]           Finally, Nu-Pharm submits that there is no obligation on a party being examined to make inquiries of a corporate entity that is independent of the party being examined, even in a case where the third party is related to another defendant in the proceeding (see Intel Corp. v. 3395383 Canada Inc., [2004] F.C.J. No. 251 (F.C.) (QL) at paragraph 21).

 

[43]           Similarly, with respect to the production of documents in the possession and control of non parties, the respondent Nu-Pharm asserts that a party being examined is not obliged to obtain documents from a non-party.  The party seeking the documents should seek production directly from the non-party, pursuant to Rule 233. Similarly, a party seeking information from a non-party should seek to examine the non-party directly, pursuant to Rule 238. At paragraph 16 in Remo Imports Ltd. v. Jaguar Canada Inc. (2000), 6 C.P.R. (4th) 62 (F.C.T.D.), Justice John O’Keefe affirmed as follows:

16.       There is no doubt that the documents requested are relevant as the defendants have pleaded sales of the goods in Canada. Although the discovery rules are to be interpreted broadly, there is a need to apply a specific rule to a certain set of facts if those facts fit the rule. Here we have the dealers, who are non-parties, specifically covered by Rule 233(1). It is my opinion that it is an error of law to order the dealers' documents to be produced by the plaintiff when Rule 233(1) sets out a simple process to obtain the documents of a non-party. I would therefore reverse the prothonotary's decision with respect to paragraph 22 and rule that the defendants need not produce the sales documents of its dealers or retailers.

 

[44]           I have carefully reviewed the arguments of both parties and I turn my attention to the questions of the principle of agency and the examinations for discovery of non-parties.

 

 

a)                  Agency principle

[45]           Black’s Law Dictionary defines agency as follows:

A fiduciary relationship created by express or implied contract or by law, in which one party (the agent) may act on behalf of another party (the principal) and bind that other party by words or actions.

 

 

[46]           Gower and Davies set out the factors Courts take into consideration when determining whether or not a relationship of agency exists. These are as follows:

(i)         A principal is bound by the transactions on his behalf of his agents or employees if the latter acted within either:

 

(a)        the actual scope of the authority conferred upon them by their principal prior to the transaction or by subsequent ratification; or

(b)        the apparent (or ostensible) scope of their authority.

 

(ii)                A principal, qua employer, may also be vicariously liable in tort for acts of his employees or agents which, though not authorized, are nevertheless within the scope of their employment but, in general, is not criminally liable for their acts.

 

Gower and Davies, Principles of Modern Company Law, 7th ed. (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2003) at 129

(See also G.H.L. Fridman, Fridman’s Law of Agency, 7th edition, (Toronto: Butterworths, 1996), at 11)

 

 

[47]           I am cognizant of passages in Prothonotary Aronovitch’s Endorsement where she took particular note of the fact that the Compendium produced by Merck is replete with documents signed by Beyger, for example that indicate as follows:

[…] “Novex Pharma (for Nu-Pharm Inc.)”  - with Beyger explicitly holding himself out to represent Nu-Pharm in its regulatory affairs.

 

The fact that Beyger and van Doornik were providing “services” to Nu-Pharm, pursuant to one or more service agreements, in my view, does not detract from the fact that they were acting for and on behalf of Nu-Pharm in the very spheres of expertise and activity in which they had been formerly employed by Nu-Pharm.

 

[48]           I cannot conclude that she was clearly wrong in that she based her decision upon a wrong principle or upon a misapprehension of the facts. I do agree that she was entitled to come to the conclusion that such pronouncements should be reserved to the Trier of Fact at Trial, where the questions of the true relationship that exists between Nu-Pharm and Apotex, whether the one is the “alter ego” of the other, are to be ultimately decided. I would therefore not interfere with the Prothonotary’s findings in this regard. Indeed, I believe that the pith and substance of that part of her Order, which is being appealed lies in her correct interpretation of the provisions in the Rules for the examination of non-parties.

 

b)         Examination of Non-Parties

[49]           I have also carefully reviewed the arguments advanced by Merck and the responses of Nu-Pharm and Benyak and conclude that Merck’s position must fail. As noted by Prothonotary Aronovitch, the Rules make specific provisions for the examination of non-parties and the production of documents from same.

 

[50]           In this regard, Rules 233 and 238 are avenues open to Merck in order to pursue further inquiries including the production of documents from Apotex and its interlocking corporate network. I cannot therefore intervene as Merck would wish, particularly since I agree that Prothonotary Aronovitch was not inexact when she noted as follows:

However, the corporate entities of which Merck would have Benyak inquire, while “third parties” for the purposes of the litigation, are suppliers of services or product of whom it is appropriate, in my view, to make inquiries, solely in respect of documents, “where one can reasonably expect that because of a relationship existing between a party and some third party, that request will be honoured”.  Eli Lilly and Co. v. Apotex Inc. [2000 F.C.J. No. 154] Hugessen J.  This is subject, of course, to reasonable limits (General Foods Corp. v. Wrigley Canada Inc. (1987), 16 C.P.R. (3d) 575 (F.C.T.D.).

 

That said, other than answering proper follow-up questions on the basis of Nu-Pharm and Benyak’s own knowledge, information and belief regarding documents or information to be provided as a result of the inquiries ordered to be made, Nu-Pharm will have no further obligation to make inquiries.  Anything further will require Merck to move to have documentary or other examination of third parties. It is to be hoped that such proceedings may be obviated by the inquiries to be made and documents produced.

 

This is aged, complex and hard fought litigation. Nothing moves except by inches.  Almost all is contested. It is on that basis that I have directed the parties to seek mediation. The hope and expectation is there will have been sufficient disclosure of relevant material and information made prior to the mediation to give the parties confidence and a basis to settle.

 

 

[51]           For these reasons, the motion on appeal brought by Merck against parts of the Making Inquiries Orders is dismissed.

 

iv)        The Benyak Appeal of the Making of Inquiries Order

[52]           Defendant Benyak relies on Nu-Pharm submissions on its appeal of the Making of Inquiries Order and adds that since he was sued in his personal capacity and since the questions that were ordered to be answered that are at issue on this appeal relate to Nu-Pharm, the corporation, and not to Mr. Benyak in his personal capacity, he should, therefore, not be required to answer them. 

 

[53]           Merck also relies on its submission as a respondent on the Nu-Pharm’s appeal and argues that Benyak had a duty to make inquiries prior to his examination for discovery in order to prepare him to answer the questions. That is why Merck points out that despite his apparent absence of any knowledge whatsoever, prior to his examination for discovery, Benyak made no inquiries of his relevant former employees. Similarly, he did not obtain relevant facts and documents from four suppliers of technology, wares and services related to NU-ENALAPRIL; namely, Apotex, Brantford, Signa and Trillium Health Care Manufacturing Inc. (Trillium).  Merck submits that Benyak cannot escape his obligations to answer the questions. In both his personal and corporate capacities, Benyak has an obligation to become better informed and provide further answers pursuant to Rule 244.

 

[54]           I agree. Rule 241 is unequivocal: the duty to make inquiries to prepare for an examination for discovery is mandatory. This Rule states that “a person to be examined for discovery, such as Mr. Benyak shall, before the examination, become informed by making inquiries of any present or former officer, servant, agent or employee of the party, who might be expected to have knowledge relating to any matter in question in the action.” Here, the Prothonotary took into consideration the “apparent dearth of knowledge” on the part of Benyak about “matters of central relevance” to the action, ordered him to make inquiries as set out in the Order. I find no error in her decision and therefore, the Benyak motion to appeal parts of the Making of Inquiries Order is dismissed.

 

            B)        THE AUGUST REFUSALS ORDER DATED AUGUST 9, 2006

[55]           In the second Order, Prothonotary Aronovitch ordered that the questions contained in categories 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the plaintiffs’ categorized charts are relevant and are to be answered, subject to the following three points:

 (a)    only proper and reasonable questions are to be answered; 

 

 (b)    in answer Nu-Pharm and Benyak must provide their knowledge, information and belief;  to the extent the nature of the inquiries to be made of certain specific persons was defined in the Court’s Order on the Making Inquiries Questions, it is not altered by this Order; and

 

 (c)    questions answered under reserve of objection are answered subject only to the provisos that:

 

(i)      they are answered without admitting their relevance or admissibility at trial; and

 

(ii)     the agreement to answer them cannot be used against Nu-Pharm or Benyak in adjudicating any other question;

and thus Nu-Pharm and Benyak will answer the questions set out in Schedule “A” hereto.

           

[56]           Prothonotary Aronovitch also ordered that Nu-Pharm and Benyak shall produce to the plaintiffs any documents agreed or ordered to be produced, as set out in the schedules hereto. Benyak is to re-attend on discovery, in his personal and corporate capacity, to answer questions that arise from the answers and documents produced as a result of this Order. Finally, the Prothonotary ordered that other than answering proper follow-up questions on the basis of Nu-Pharm and Benyak’s own knowledge, information and belief regarding documents or information to be provided as a result of the inquiries ordered to be made, Nu-Pharm will have no further obligation to make inquiries. Anything further will require Merck to move to have documentary or other examination of third parties.  It is to be hoped that such proceedings may be obviated by the inquiries to be made and documents produced.

 

i)          Issues

[57]           The moving parties raise the following two issues:

a)      Did the prothonotary err in principle or misapprehend the facts?

b)      Did the prothonotary err by failing to provide an Endorsement of her August Refusals Order? As this issue is also raised in the November Refusals Order, it is addressed further in these reasons under that section.

 

[58]           For the reasons that follow, the response to the first question is negative. Each of the three motions of appeal against the August Refusals Order, dated August 9, 2006 shall therefore be dismissed.

 

ii)         Standard of Review

[59]           The appeals of the August Refusals Order are discretionary. As a result, as indicated above, I shall not intervene unless the moving parties can show that the Prothonotary was clearly wrong, or based her decisions on a wrong principle or on a misapprehension of the facts. I adopt the position of the defendant Nu-Pharm in this regard that Prothonotary Aronovitch has case managed this action for seven years and thus has intimate knowledge of the history of the action and the discovery process.

  

[60]           This Court and the Court of Appeal have consistently held that deference is especially owed to discretionary orders that are issued by case management prothonotaries, having regard to their intimate familiarity with the conduct of the proceeding and their powers and duties under Rule 385. In such cases, a judge should interfere “only in the clearest case of a misuse of judicial discretion” (Apotex v. Merck & Co., 2007 FC 250, [2007] F.C.J. No 322 (F.C.) (QL)).

 

 

iii)         The Nu-Pharm Appeal of the August Refusals Order

[61]           Nu-Pharm seeks a variation of the August Refusals Order to the extent that it orders answers to the questions it has set out in Schedule “A” of the Order. Nu-Pharm submits that the August Refusals Order was largely predicated on the Prothonotary’s ruling, without oral submissions and without reasons, that ten categories of refused questions were relevant and not otherwise improper as being a matter of privilege, expert or legal opinion, overbroad, or abusively repetitive.

 

[62]           Nu-Pharm further submits that Prothonotary Aronovitch erred in law by failing to follow the legal principles of discovery, such as the determination that irrelevant and/or overbroad questions are improper. Also, Nu-Pharm states that the Prothonotary erred by requiring Nu-Pharm and Benyak to answer questions that are within the examining party’s means of knowledge. These include questions which ask a party to explain documents that it has already produced or has agreed to produce in advance of producing them, and questions which improperly inquire into matters which are privileged and need not be answered.

 

[63]           Not surprisingly, Merck takes the opposing view. As the parties’ arguments begin to repeat themselves, I shall also repeat myself and underscore that I find nothing clearly wrong in the decision of the Prothonotary with respect to questions ordered to be answered in Schedule “A” of the said Order. Accordingly, the motion on appeal brought by Nu-Pharm against parts of the August Refusal Order is likewise dismissed. It is therefore required to answer the questions set out in the Schedules to the Order.

 

 

iv)        The Merck Appeal of the August Refusals Order

[64]           Merck argues that the Prothonotary erred in law by limiting the follow-up questions that Nu-Pharm and Benyak can answer and thereby requesting that Merck bring a motion under Rule 238 to make further inquiries of the third party. Merck argues that such a procedure anticipates the types of questions that may arise and can lead to a two-tiered system of motions in what are already complex and unwieldy legal proceedings. This, Merck argues is contrary to the goals of judicial economy and efficiency set out in the Rules (Rule 3). Finally, Merck submits that the Prothonotary erred by improperly shrouding the questions that can be answered and the documents to be produced in the cloak of solicitor/client privilege. Such an Order is misplaced at this late stage of the discovery process.

 

[65]           Merck points out that the defendants’ conduct as alleged in its Statement of Claim is so brazen and egregious a breach of Orders of this Court that the integrity of the Court’s process is negatively affected if it passes without condemnation.  In addition, the public interest in the administration of justice, require that evidence relevant to the scheme not be allowed to be concealed behind the very business and corporate structures that are part and parcel of the scheme.

 

[66]           For its part, Nu-Pharm, contests the position adopted by Merck and comes to the aid of Prothonotary Aronovitch who has case managed the matter, heard and rendered innumerable Orders over the course of the seven years since the Statement of Claim was first filed. In addition, Nu-Pharm argues that with respect to the questions of privilege that the Prothonotary has inserted as a proviso to the expected answers to questions and production of documents, is a highly acceptable procedural practice being exercised with the discretion of a conscientious, experienced Prothonotary. Nu-Pharm is also of the view that the Prothonotary’s rulings with respect to claims of solicitor/client privilege were consistent with the jurisprudence and are, in any event, matters which fall entirely within her discretion. Nu-Pharm argues that as such, this Court should dismiss Merck’s motion of appeal against the August Refusals Order.

 

[67]           I have carefully weighed in the balance the able arguments on both sides. I am not unmoved by the concerns of judicial economy and efficiency in the procedures of discovery and fairness advanced by Counsel for Merck. I am persuaded however by the representations of Counsel for Nu-Pharm not only with respect to the expertise of Prothonotary Aronovitch in the Rules of the Federal Courts but also with her intimate knowledge of the case from its very beginnings. She has demonstrated sensitivity, patience and resolve to safeguard the general principle in her interpretation of the Rules of the Court, which as notes Rule 3 are

[. . .] applied so as to secure the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of every proceeding on its merits.

 

 

[68]           As such, I arrive at the same conclusions as my colleague, Justice Richard Mosley in Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co., above (see paragraph 60 of these reasons), who said at paragraph 31 of his decision:

31.     I find no reason to conclude that the learned prothonotary's Order was clearly wrong, in the sense that the exercise of discretion by the prothonotary was based upon a wrong principle or upon a misapprehension of the facts. […]

 

[69]           It is also appropriate at this stage to cite Justice John M. Evans in Sawridge Band v. Canada, 2006 FCA 228, [2006] F.C.J. No. 956 (F.C.A.) (QL) at paragraphs 21, 22 and 23:

21     First, this Court is very reluctant to interfere with decisions made by a judge in the course of managing a matter prior to trial, particularly one as complex, lengthy and difficult as this one. As a result of living with the matter over time, the case management judge will have acquired an overall understanding of it which an appellate court, on the basis of hearing an appeal on a particular issue, cannot possibly match in either depth or breadth.

 

22     When performing essentially case management functions judges are appropriately given "elbow room" by appellate courts, so that they can get on with what is often a difficult job, calling for a mix of patience, flexibility, firmness, ingenuity, and an overall sense of fairness to all parties. These qualities are very evident in the way in which both Hugessen and Russell JJ. have performed their tasks in the present matter.

 

23     In my opinion, the Court should bear the above considerations in mind when both determining and applying the standards of review appropriate to the different aspects of Russell J.'s decision by virtue of Housen v. Nikolaisen, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235, 2002 SCC 33.

 

[70]           Accordingly, this appeal by motion of Merck to set aside the August 9, 2006 Refusals Order will be dismissed.

 

                        v)         The Benyak Appeal of the August Refusals Order

[71]           Counsel for Benyak adopts and relies on Nu-Pharm’s submissions on the above-mentioned motion on appeal of the August Refusals Order.

 

[72]           Merck submits that because of the lack of preparation and dearth of knowledge demonstrated by Mr. Benyak, it has spent three years attempting to obtain proper production from the Defendants. At discoveries, Benyak, in his personal capacity and as the corporate representative for Nu-Pharm, refused or took under advisement more than 1,500 questions including many that concerned documents which clearly fell within the Production Order. Nu-Pharm only produced two internal documents until it was compelled to produce additional documents by Order of Prothonotary Aronovitch dated June 24, 2002 (the Production Order). To this date, the Affidavit of Documents of Nu-Pharm does not contain all the documents ordered to be produced pursuant to the Production Order.

 

[73]           Benyak has been a senior officer (usually president) and a director of Nu-Pharm since it was incorporated in 1989.  He has also been a shareholder of the company.  Nevertheless, on discovery he professed to have little or no knowledge, information or belief on numerous important topics, including: preparation of his company’s regulatory filings concerning NU-ENALAPRIL; the background behind all the Apotex documents contained in the filings; the Notices of Allegation and litigation relating to the filings; the alleged 1999 agreements pursuant to which Nu-Pharm allegedly received sodium enalapril technology in exchange for $5,0000,000; the identity of the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) in NU-ENALAPRIL; and the technology package that Nu-Pharm gave to its tablet manufacturer to allow it to make NU-ENALAPRIL tablets. 

 

[74]           Similarly, submits Merck, Benyak was unable to provide information about the negotiation or execution of four key 1998 agreements, the circumstances which led Nu-Pharm to enter into them, or the consideration which flowed under them. Benyak’s evidence was that, as president and CEO of Nu-Pharm, he simply signed documents which were put in front of him. One agreement disposed of most of Nu-Pharm’s assets. The other three locked Nu-Pharm’s business under Apotex’ control. Finally, Benyak was unable to provide information concerning the details of the 1998 sale of Nu-Pharm’s shares by its parent, Apotex Pharmaceutical Holdings Inc. (APHI), to 1314138 Ontario Ltd, (whose officer and director is J. Ulster, a long time friend of Dr. Sherman), or the extent to which he benefited from the sale of NU-ENALAPRIL. For example, he indicated that:

(a)     he did not know Ulster, despite the fact that he is director of 1314138 Ontario Ltd which purchased the shares of Nu-Pharm;

 

(b)     he was unaware of the reason for the direction of $12.75 million dollars from Nu-Pharm to APHI following the sale of the Nu-Pharm shares and;

 

(c)     he refused to provide an explanation for the vast increase in value of his Nu-Pharm shares between 1998 and 2001.

 

 

[75]           I am of the view that Merck is correct. As President of Nu-Pharm, Mr. Benyak has a duty to be informed and his refusal to respond to the questions set out in the Prothonotary’s August Refusals Order is an avowal of a dereliction of his duties. Moreover, it is not enough for Mr. Benyak to also say that the questions pertain to Nu-Pharm and he is therefore absolved of all responsibilities in both his corporate and personal capacities. As President of Nu-Pharm, he is the senior managing officer, he is not an underling but rather a director who can be considered to be a directing mind of Nu-Pharm. Personal liability applies not to lower level employees but to directors, to people such as the President, who are the directing mind and will of a company. As in his corporate capacity, Mr. Benyak is not immune in his personal capacity and has a duty to not only inform himself but also to respond to the questions as ordered by the Prothonotary.

 

[76]           For these reasons, the Benyak Appeal of parts of the August Refusals Order is dismissed.

 

 

 

 

            C)        THE NOVEMBER REFUSALS ORDER DATED NOVEMBER 24, 2006

[77]           In the November Refusals Order, Prothonotary Aronovitch ordered among other things that Nu-Pharm and Benyak respond to the questions pursuant to Rule 241 contained in Schedule “A” to the Order of November 24, 2006 and ordered costs to Merck.

 

i)          Issues

[78]           The parties raise the following issues with respect to the November Refusals Order:

a)      Did the Prothonotary err by providing minimal reasons such as an Endorsement in her August and November Refusals Orders?

b)      Did the Prothonotary base her Order on a misapprehension of the facts with respect to the questions ordered answered in Schedule “A”?

c)      Did the Prothonotary err in awarding costs to Merck at the high end of Column V of Tariff B in the November Refusals Order?

 

[79]           For the reasons that follow, the response to each of these questions is negative. Consequently the three motions of appeals of the Order of Prothonotary Aronovitch dated November 24, 2006 will be dismissed.

 

ii)         Standard of Review

[80]           The Prothonotary’s decision with respect to the interpretation of the Rules is reviewable on the correctness standard. Where however it concerns the discretionary decisions not to provide an Endorsement (explanation) or to award costs, the standard of review remains that of the clearly wrong standard.

iii)         The Nu-Pharm Appeal of the November Refusals Order

[81]           Nu-Pharm seeks an Order varying the November Refusals Order to the extent that it orders answers to the questions as set out in Schedule “A” of the Order, which are based on a misapprehension of the facts. Nu-Pharm submits that, in the November Refusals Order, the Prothonotary erred in law in failing to apply the general legal principles that govern the conduct of examinations for discovery.

 

[82]           Notably, Nu-Pharm is critical of the ruling in that it believes that questions that have already been answered need not be answered again, and as such Schedule “A of the Order is replete with repetitive questions. Also questions relating to other litigation need not be answered in light of the implied undertaking rule, particularly where such other litigation is subject to a confidentiality order. Nu-Pharm states that many of the rulings in the November Refusals Order required Nu-Pharm to provide information relating to other legal proceedings, which are either a matter of public record, or are subject to the implied undertaking rule. Relying on the decision N.M. Paterson & Sons Ltd. v. St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corp., 2002 FCT 1247, (2002), 225 F.T.R. 308 (F.C.T.D.), affirmed 2004 FCA 210, Nu-Pharm states that the implied undertaking rule establishes that documents and information produced as part of the Court process are confidential to the producing party, unless given in open court. Merck ought to have applied to the Court prior to the proceedings for relief from its obligation of confidentiality imposed by the implied undertaking rule to have access to documents it now seeks from Nu-Pharm, some of which are subject to solicitor/client privilege.

 

[83]           Nu-Pharm highlights that Merck was party to the legal proceedings in which many of the questions in Schedule “A” find their roots. Therefore, where the information it seeks in relation to these other proceedings is not already in the public record, Merck is perfectly capable of obtaining this information on its own and without the assistance of Nu-Pharm.

a)         Absence of Endorsements

[84]           Much like Merck, Nu-Pharm has expressed more than a passing concern for the fact that both the August and the November Refusals Orders are not accompanied by an endorsement or any explanation for the Prothonotary’s reasons. The parties note that both Refusals Order were largely predicated on the Prothonotary’s ruling, without having had the benefit of full oral submissions and without providing any reasons, that ten categories of refused questions were relevant and not otherwise improper.

 

[85]           With respect to the absence of an endorsement in either Refusals Order, I rely again on Apotex v. Merck & Co., above (see paragraph 60 of these reasons), at paragraph 13 of Justice Mosley’s decision:

The lack of reasons alone will not automatically give rise to a hearing de novo on an appeal from a prothonotary's decision before a judge of this Court. This was the conclusion Justice François Lemieux reached in Anchor Brewing Co. v. Sleeman Brewing & Malting Co., 2001 FCT 1066, 15 C.P.R. (4th) 63 at para. 31 having reviewed the existing precedents. Justice Lemieux noted further at paragraph 32 of his reasons that:

 

De novo intervention is not justified when, examining all of the circumstances, including the nature of the order made, the evidence before the prothonotary, whether the exercise of discretion involves essentially a consideration of legal principles, reasonably demonstrate the manner in which the prothonotary exercised his/her discretion.

 

[emphasis in the original]

 

[86]           The absence of endorsement does not cause prejudice to the parties. The Court is of the opinion that endorsement is not required in orders such as those contested here.

 

b)         Cost Awards

[87]           Nu-Pharm objects to the Prothonotary’s costs award to Merck at the high end of Column V of Tariff B in the November Refusals Order, which is at variance with the Order made during the hearing. Also, Nu-Pharm submits that the Prothonotary erred in law by making a punitive award of costs and disbursements, in the circumstances of this case, and in the absence of submissions from the plaintiff in support of an award of punitive costs. The Prothonotary erred in law by refusing to consider submissions on the costs of the entire portion of the motion that has been argued to date, to allow proper consideration of the relative success of the parties in the motion thus far, despite the request of counsel for Nu-Pharm.

 

[88]           Counsel for Merck submits that the award of costs is discretionary and cannot be reviewed de novo. It can only be disturbed by a motions judge on appeal if it is based on a wrong principle or upon a misapprehension of the facts. The award of costs was not clearly wrong argues Merck (see First Canadians' Constitution Draft Committee The United Korean Government (Canada) v. Canada, 2004 FCA 93, 238 D.L.R. (4th) 306 at 308 (F.C.A.)).

 

[89]           As Merck underscores, Rule 400(1), establishes that costs are in the discretion of the Court. In determining the scale of costs to be awarded, Rule 400(3) sets out a number of factors the Court may consider in the exercise of its discretion under Rule 400(1).  The relevant factors to consider include, inter alia, the result of the proceeding, any conduct of a party that tended to unnecessarily lengthen the duration of the proceedings and whether any step in the proceeding was unnecessary or taken through excessive caution. Where a step in the proceeding is unnecessary or a party’s conduct unnecessarily lengthens the duration of a proceeding, the Court may fix increased costs on an interim basis (see Apotex Inc. v. Syntex Pharmaceuticals International Ltd. (1999), 2 C.P.R. (4^th) 368 (F.C.T.D.) at paras. 2-4, varied but not on that point (2001), 12 C.P.R. (4^th) 413 (F.C.A.)).

 

[90]           Contrary to the Defendants’ assertion, Merck rebuts that there is no evidence that the Learned Prothonotary’s costs award was punitive.  The Prothonotary’s stated reasons for awarding costs to Merck at the high end of Column V of Tariff B, included the fact that Nu-Pharm persisted in maintaining its objections, despite the obvious relevance of hundreds of questions.  It can also be inferred that she took into account Merck’s additional submissions which included:

(a)        Merck’s relative success on the motion; and

 

(b)        Nu-Pharm’s intransigence that unreasonably lengthened the hearing of this motion, protracted the discovery process and delayed the proceeding.

 

[91]           Merck submits that absent any evidence that the Learned Prothonotary’s costs award was clearly wrong, there is no basis for this Court to intervene.

 

[92]           Having considered the arguments of the parties on the awarding of costs, I agree that the Prothonotary’s award of costs is a discretionary power, which as counsel for Merck so rightly points out, ought not to be disturbed unless it can be demonstrated that it was clearly wrong. No such conclusion can be drawn here. I see also no value to the argument put forward by Nu-Pharm that the Prothonotary said at the hearing that costs should be against Apotex.  The order clearly shows that costs are payable by Nu-Pharm and Benyak.

 

[93]           Therefore, the appeal by Nu-Pharm against the November Refusals Order is dismissed.

 

iv)        The Merck Appeal of the November Refusals Order

[94]           Merck submits that the Prothonotary erred in limiting the obligations of Nu-Pharm and Benyak and also by standing down additional questions submitted in Schedule “E”, until the responses of the earlier questions and that without providing an endorsement or explanation for this ruling, as was done in the August Refusals Order. Merck seeks an Order reversing in particular subsection 1(d) of the November Refusals Order, which states as follows:

(d) At this time Nu-Pharm and Benyak need make no inquiries of, nor any requests for documents from, Beyger, Culp, Van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium, or Saban beyond any previously ordered on this motion and any previously undertaken to be made; the questions listed in Schedule “E” hereto, to the extent they involve inquiries of such persons, will be stood down and not dealt with by the parties or the Court until the results of the inquiries and requests previously ordered are known.

 

[95]           Nu-Pharm and Benyak submit that the Prothonotary appropriately exercised her discretion to place reasonable limits on the vast number of questions that Merck seeks to have Nu-Pharm and Benyak ask of non-parties.  Further, the Prothonotary did not err in ordering the Defendants did not have to answer the 17 additional questions Merck now seeks to have answered, all of which are irrelevant and/or otherwise improper.  Moreover, by making submissions of the alleged scheme to circumvent the permanent injunction, Nu-Pharm opposes Merck’s attempt to use this theory of its case to broaden the scope of the discovery to non-parties, in a manner that is impermissible in the Rules. For these reasons, Nu-Pharm and Benyak submit that Merck’s motion is without merit and, therefore, ought to be dismissed with costs.

 

[96]           I do not find that the Prothonotary’s ruling in this regard is clearly wrong. In light of the number of questions and the insistence of Merck to pursue examinations for discovery of non-parties via Rules 241 and 244 rather than by Rules 233 and 238, which are specifically intended for just such examinations of non parties, the Prothonotary has sought to apply the Rules to secure the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of each question on its merits. It is purely common sense, I would rather think, for the Prothonotary to rule that Merck should wait to see the nature and calibre of the fruits of the initial examinations, before putting forward multiple other questions that may prove to be redundant. This is not clearly wrong. I see no reason to interfere with such economy of proceeding.

 

[97]           For these reasons, the motion by Merck to vary the November Refusals Order is dismissed.

 

v)         The Benyak Appeal of the November Refusals Order

[98]           Benyak has adopted and relied on the submissions of the Nu-Pharm motion of appeal of the November Refusals Order.  For the reasons provided above in Nu-Pharm’s appeal of the November refusals order, the present Benyak appeal is also dismissed.

 

 

 

D)        THE SHERMAN ORDER DATED AUGUST 9, 2006

[99]           Prothonotary Aronovitch ordered that the defendant Sherman does not have an obligation to make further inquiries in answer to questions asked concerning those corporations controlled by him including (but not limited to) Apotex Inc., Apotex Pharmaceutical Holdings Inc., Apotex Holdings Inc., Brantford Chemicals Inc., Apotex Research Inc., the “Apotex Group of Companies,” and their officers, directors and employees thereof, or concerning third party corporations including Signa S.A. de C.V. and Trillium Health Care Manufacturing Inc.

 

i)          Issue

[100]       The Sherman Order raises the single issue whether the Prothonotary erred by finding that Sherman has no obligation to better inform himself by making further inquiries to non parties to the action.

 

[101]       For the reasons that follow, the answer to that question is negative. Consequently, the Plaintiffs’ Motion of appeal of this part of the Order of Prothonotary Aronovitch dated August 9, 2006 shall be dismissed.

 

ii)         Standard of Review

[102]       If the Prothonotary’s decision raises a question of law then it is reviewable on a standard of correctness (see Housen v. Nikolaisen, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235 at para. 8; and Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd., [1993] 2 F.C. 425).  If it is a discretionary order, it is reviewable on the clearly wrong standard.

 

iii)         The Merck Appeal of the Sherman Order

[103]       Merck, the moving party on this motion of appeal, argues that Prothonotary Aronovitch erred in law by failing to order certain inquiries pursuant to Rule 244. Notably, in interpreting the meaning of the current Rule 244, the Prothonotary compared Rule 465 in the pre 1990 Rules to Rule 458 in the 1990 Rules. The Prothonotary concluded that the removal of the words “means of knowledge” in Rule 458 (now Rule 240) meant that there was no basis to extend the obligation to make inquiries under Rule 244 beyond those entities set out in Rule 241. Appearing in his personal capacity, Sherman was thus not required to make inquiries of the persons stipulated in Rule 241:

 

[104]       In so doing, Merck submits the Prothonotary failed to apply a purposive and contextual approach to her interpretation of the Rules, as is encouraged in section 12 of the Interpretation Act. Also, the Prothonotary failed to consider the amendments made between the 1990 Rules and 1998 Rules, and fell into legal error. Finally, the Prothonotary erred when she based her reasoning on two outdated cases: Leesona Corp. v. Snia Viscosa Canada Ltd. (1975), 26 C.P.R. (2d) 136 (F.C.T.D.) and Risi Stone Ltd. v. Groupe Permacon Inc. (1994), 56 C.P.R. (3d) 381 (F.C.T.D.). Both cases  have long since been overtaken by legislative will. Moreover, neither case supports the narrow interpretation, which Prothonotary Aronovitch placed on Rule 244.

 

[105]       Merck adds that neither case was decided under the current Rules or addressed Rule 244 or its predecessor. Leesona was decided in 1975 under the pre-1990 Rules. It does stand for the proposition that the old Rules were broader than the new Rules. Moreover, the “general rule” referred to by Justice Walsh and cited by the Prothonotary, referred to a discovery witness submitted on behalf of a corporation.  It has no application to Dr. Sherman’s discovery.  Similarly, the Risi Stone decision was made under the 1990 Rules. Justice Marc Nadon’s comments were made in the context of questions seeking an interpretation of a patent or the expression of an opinion. The comments cannot be construed as general statements concerning the scope of Rule 458, much less the scope of current Rule 244.

 

[106]       Counsel for the respondent, Dr. Sherman argues that it is not the Prothonotary but rather the Appellant, Merck who has misconstrued the legislative intent of Rule 244. Merck seeks to have the Court overlook the fact that Dr. Sherman is sued in his personal capacity and as such he is not a corporate representative upon whom it is incumbent to make further inquiries of non-parties such as Apotex. In essence, Merck asks the Court to do what it has failed to do and that is to avail itself of the provisions of Rule 238 that clearly sets out the option for examinations of non-parties with leave of the Court.

 

[107]       Moreover, the case of Hayden Manufacturing Co. v. Canplas Industries Ltd. (August 20, 1998) T-873-93 (F.C.T.D.) was not before Prothonotary Aronovitch. Counsel for Sherman provides a survey of the cases relied on by Merck and systematically distinguishes each from the particular situation of her client, demonstrating their inapplicability to the case.

 

[108]       She submits that the Court should not engage in the interpretation of Rule 244 because the Prothonotary did not say that Rule 244 is limited to 241. Prothonotary Aronovitch analyzed the case law cited by Merck and exercised her discretion properly in not forcing Sherman to seek unlimited inquiries out of corporations that are not parties to the present action.

 

[109]       She adds that the history of Apotex involvement was before the Prothonotary and she dealt with that. Deference should be given to the analysis in her Endorsement.

 

[110]       Having carefully reviewed the Endorsement in the Order of Prothonotary Aronovitch and assessed the arguments of the parties, I agree with the respondent's arguments that I need not engage in the interpretation of Rule 244 interesting as it may be, to dispose of this appeal.

 

[111]       Prothonotary Aronovitch wrote in her penultimate paragraph of her Endorsement:

As to Rule 244, it is not as Merck suggests unlimited or unconstrained in the obligation it imposes.  Rather, it is to be read and understood in the context of Rules 240 and 241.

 

The Court must be mindful of what was written before those lines.  In other words, the context is very important here.

 

[112]       Prothonotary Aronovitch considered that Dr. Sherman was sued as a personal defendant and not as a corporate representative.  She dealt with the notion of formal agency between the corporations and Dr. Sherman. She analyzed Merck's submissions that Dr. Sherman is an "alter ego" of Apotex and companies related to Apotex and that the "corporate veil" should be lifted. She commented and distinguished the case law cited by Merck and finally concluded "… Merck, in my view, as placed the proverbial cart before the horse".

 

[113]       In my respectful view, Prothonotary Aronovitch was exercising her discretion in the evaluation of the evidence adduced before her when she released her order.  I find no basis to intervene because she is not clearly wrong and her findings are not based on a misapprehension of facts.

 

[114]       Therefore, Merck's appeal of the Sherman Order shall be dismissed.

 

 

ORDER

 

THIS COURT ORDERS that:

1.         Nu-Pharm’s motion dated October 10, 2006 is dismissed, costs in the cause;

2.         Merck's motion dated October 12, 2006 is dismissed, costs in the cause;

3.         Benyak motion dated October 12, 2006 is dismissed, costs in the cause;

4.         Merck's motion dated December 4, 2006 is dismissed, costs in the cause;

5.         Nu-Pharm’s motion dated December 4, 2006 is dismissed, costs in the cause;

6.         Benyak motion dated December 4, 2006 is dismissed, costs in the cause;

7.         Merck's motion dated October 13, 2006 is dismissed, costs in the cause.

 

“Michel Beaudry”

 

 

APPENDIX “I”

 

Date: 20060809

Court File No.: T-753-99

Ottawa, Ontario, August 9, 2006

PRESENT: Madam Prothonotary Roza Aronovitch

B E T W E E N:

 

MERCK & CO., INC. and MERCK FROSST CANADA & CO.

Plaintiffs

- and -

 

NU-PHARM INC., BERNARD SHERMAN
and RICHARD BENYAK

Defendants

 

ORDER

(Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Richard Benyak and Nu-Pharm Inc. to Answer
Questions Concerning Making Inquiries)

 

            UPON motion by the plaintiffs for:

1.                  An order compelling the defendants Nu-Pharm Inc. (“Nu-Pharm”) and Richard Benyak (“Benyak”) to answer the undertakings given on the examination for discovery of Benyak, in his corporate and individual capacity, held on April 6, 13, 14, 15 and 16, June 11, August, 24, 25, and 26, 2004 and March 4, 2005;

2.                  An order compelling Nu-Pharm and Benyak to answer discovery questions refused on the examination for discovery of Benyak, in his personal and corporate capacity, held on April 6, 13, 14, 15 and 16, June 11, August 24, 25 and 26, 2004 and March 4, 2005;

3.                  An order compelling Nu-Pharm and Benyak to answer discovery questions asked by way of written interrogatory;

4.                  An order compelling Nu-Pharm and Benyak to re-attend on discovery to answer further questions, including questions arising out of the answers provided and documents produced in respect of paragraph’s 1-3 above;

5.                  An order granting the plaintiffs’ their costs of this motion; and

6.                  Such further and other relief as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court deem just;

AND UPON this Court directing that a subset of the questions listed in the plaintiffs’ categorized charts at Tab 30 of the Moving Parties' Motion Record be dealt with first, said subset being set out in Schedules “A”, “B” and “C” attached hereto (the “Making Inquiries Questions”);

AND UPON the parties having informed the Court that they had resolved certain of the Making Inquiries Questions as indicated in Schedule "C" hereto;

AND UPON the Court having informed the parties of its decision as set out in paragraph 1 below and then directed the parties to attempt to resolve the remaining unresolved Making Inquiries Questions, subject to appeal of the paragraph 1 decision;

AND UPON the parties having informed the Court thereafter that, given the Court's direction and paragraph 1 below, they had reached an agreement resolving the remaining Making Inquiries Questions as indicated in Schedule "B" hereto, which agreement includes the terms that such agreement is without prejudice to any party’s right to appeal and that if any of the principles set out in paragraph 1 below is finally overturned after appeal, then the agreement with respect to any Schedule "B" questions affected by the successful appeal will be amended to correspond therewith;

AND UPON reviewing the Moving Parties’ Motion Record and the responding motion record of Benyak and Nu-Pharm, and hearing the submissions of their counsel on April 11 and June 5 and 6, 2006 on the Making Inquiries Questions:

ENDORSEMENT

 

The background facts in respect of Anthony van Doornik (“van Doornik”), Joseph Beyger (“Beyger”) and Dawn Culp (“Culp”) are set out in Merck’s Compendium labeled “Inquiries of Former Employees”.  These are former employees of Nu-Pharm.  van Doornik and Beyger later moved to Novex Pharma, a division of Apotex Inc.  While at Novex Pharma they provided services to Nu-Pharm in respect of Nu-Pharm’s regulatory work.

 

Manufacturing and regulatory affairs appear to have been the preserves of Beyger and  van Doornik, while at Nu-Pharm and later at Novex Pharma, on behalf of Nu-Pharm.

 

There is no doubt that these three former employees have knowledge of matters in question.  In the circumstances, they came within the scope of “present or former officer, servant, agent or employee of the party” of whom the individual being examined for discovery on behalf of Nu-Pharm ought to make inquiries.

 

In the particular circumstances of this case, I find as well that van Doornik and Beyger may be said to be akin to agents in respect of their areas of responsibility while at Novex Pharma.  The Compendium produced by Merck is replete with documents signed by Beyger, for example, as follows:  “Novex Pharma (for Nu-Pharm Inc.)”  - with Beyger explicitly holding himself out to represent Nu-Pharm in its regulatory affairs.

 

The fact that Beyger and van Doornik were providing “services” to Nu-Pharm, pursuant to one or more service agreements, in my view, does not detract from the fact that they were acting for and on behalf of Nu-Pharm in the very spheres of expertise and activity in which they had been formerly employed by Nu-Pharm.

 

There are further factors arising from the particular circumstances of this case that I have taken into consideration - the apparent derth of knowledge, information and documentation on the part of Benyak and Nu-Pharm regarding matters of central relevance in this action, as well the number of instances where Benyak on behalf of Nu-Pharm, has already, quite properly in my view, undertaken to make inquiries.

 

The combination of factors in the circumstances are such that I have no hesitation in finding a duty on the part of Nu-Pharm and Benyak to make inquiries of van Doornik, Beyger and Culp.

 

Note that I do not conclude that there is a relationship of formal agency, or “alter ego”, as between Nu-Pharm and the corporate entities suggested by Merck – including Apotex.  Those alleged relationships will have to be proven at trial.  For the same reason I cannot draw the inference urged on me by Merck that Nu-Pharm is a sham corporation.

 

However, the corporate entities of which Merck would have Benyak inquire, while “third parties” for the purposes of the litigation, are suppliers of services or product of whom it is appropriate, in my view, to make inquiries, solely in respect of documents, “where one can reasonably expect that because of a relationship existing between a party and some third party, that request will be honoured”.  Eli Lilly and Co. v. Apotex Inc. [2000 F.C.J. No. 154] Hugessen J.  This is subject, of course, to reasonable limits (General Foods Corp. v. Wrigley Canada Inc. (1987), 16 C.P.R. (3d) 575 (F.C.T.D.).

 

That said, other than answering proper follow-up questions on the basis of Nu-Pharm and Benyak’s own knowledge, information and belief regarding documents or information to be provided as a result of the inquiries ordered to be made, Nu-Pharm will have no further obligation to make inquiries.  Anything further will require Merck to move to have documentary or other examination of third parties.  It is to be hoped that such proceedings may be obviated by the inquiries to be made and documents produced.

 

This is aged, complex and hard fought litigation.  Nothing moves except by inches.  Almost all is contested.  It is on that basis that I have directed the parties to seek mediation.  The hope and expectation is there will have been sufficient disclosure of relevant material and information made prior to the mediation to give the parties confidence and a basis to settle.

 

 

 

THIS COURT ORDERS that:

1.                  For the reasons set out in the Endorsement of the Court, Nu-Pharm and Benyak:

(a)                will make inquiries of Joseph Beyger, Antony van Doornik and Dawn Culp;

(b)               will request of each of Apotex Inc. (including its Novex Pharma division), Brantford, Signa and Trillium that they produce to Nu-Pharm and Benyak relevant documents, whereby said requests are subject to reasonable limits, but Nu-Pharm and Benyak need not otherwise make inquiries of them;

and thus will answer the questions set out in Schedule “A” hereto.

2.                  With respect to the inquiries and requests to be made by Nu-Pharm and Benyak pursuant to paragraph 1 above:

(a)                they shall be in writing;

(b)               they shall be made with 60 days of the date of this Order;

(c)                they shall be meaningful, include the details of the matters that have been ordered to be inquired about or requested, and describe specifically the inquiry or request that has been ordered to be made; and

(d)               Subject to any appeal and any motion therein to stay this subparagraph, Nu-Pharm and Benyak shall inform the plaintiffs of any response to any of the inquiries or requests within 30 days of receiving said response.

3.                  Benyak is to re-attend on discovery, in his personal and corporate capacity, to answer questions that arise from the answers and documents produced as a result of this Order and the resolution and agreement referred to herein; the date by which Benyak shall re-attend will be dealt with in a separate Order.

4.                  That portion of the plaintiffs’ motion dealing with questions other than the Making Inquiries Questions, and the costs of the entire motion, will be dealt with in a separate Order.

“R. Aronovitch”

SCHEDULE ‘A’

 

 

SCHEDULE ‘B’

 

No		Request    No	Discovery    Date		Page No				Question No	Category	Disposition
296		1055	04/16/2004		961				4218	3 (b)	Agreed to be answered
311		1323	06/11/2004		1172 – 1173				5011 – 5014	3 (b)	Agreed to be answered
312		1324	06/11/2004		1173				5017 – 5018	3 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer
313		1325	06/11/2004		1173				5019	3 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer
314		1326	06/11/2004		1173 – 1174				5020	3 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer
315		1328	06/11/2004		1174				5023	3 (b)	Agreed to be answered
316		1330	06/11/2004		1175-1176				5026 – 5028	3 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer
318		1342	06/11/2004		1185				5068	3 (b)	Agreed  that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer
319		1401	06/11/2004		1217				5199	3 (b)	Agreed to answer with respect to Nu-Pharm, but not Trillium
320		1423	06/11/2004		1228				5234	3 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer
321		1434	06/11/2004		1230 – 1231				5245 – 5246	3 (b)	Agreed to be answered
322		1464	06/11/2004		1246				5308 – 5309	3 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer
323		1465	06/11/2004		1246				5310	3 (b)	Agreed to be answered
324		1466	06/11/2004		1246				5311	3 (b)	Agreed to be answered
328		1262	06/11/2004		1132				4846	3 (c)	Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer
366		1228	06/11/2004		1105				4736	3 (d)	Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer
368		1300	06/11/2004		1159 – 1160				4963 – 4964	3 (d)	Agreed to be answered
369		1306	06/11/2004		1165				4981	3 (d)	Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer
370		1307	06/11/2004		1165				4982	3 (d)	Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer
371		1309	06/11/2004		1165				4983	3 (d)	Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer
372		1310	06/11/2004		1165				4984	3 (d)	Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer
375		1320	06/11/2004		1170				5003 – 5005	3 (d)	Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer
376		1321	06/11/2004		1171				5006 - 5009	3 (d)	Agreed to be answered
377		1322	06/11/2004		1172				5010	3 (d)	Agreed to be answered
378		1334	06/11/2004		1177				5032 – 5034	3 (d)	Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer
379		1344	06/11/2004		1186				5071 – 5074	3 (d)	Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer
380		1345	06/11/2004		1187				5075	3 (d)	Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer
381		1351	06/11/2004		1187				5077	3 (d)	Agreed to be answered
382		1352	06/11/2004		1188				5078	3 (d)	Agreed to be answered
383		1353	06/11/2004		1188				5079	3 (d)	Agreed to be answered
384		1367	06/11/2004		1197				5115 – 5116	3 (d)	Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer
385		1368	06/11/2004		1197				5117	3 (d)	Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer
386		1370	06/11/2004		1198				5124	3 (d)	Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer
387		1371	06/11/2004		1199				5125	3 (d)	Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer
391		1391	06/11/2004		1211				5176 – 5177	3 (d)	Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer
392		1392	06/11/2004		1211				5178	3 (d)	Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer
393		1395	06/11/2004		1213				5184	3 (d)	Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer
395		1403	06/11/2004		1218				5202 – 5203	3 (d)	Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer
397		1406	06/11/2004		1220				5209	3 (d)	Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer
398		1407	06/11/2004		1220				5210	3 (d)	Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer
400		1410	06/11/2004		1222				5215 – 5216	3 (d)	Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer
401		1413	06/11/2004		1223				5218	3 (d)	Agreed to be answered
402		1414	06/11/2004		1224				5219	3 (d)	Agreed to be answered
403		1416	06/11/2004		1225				5225	3 (d)	Agreed to be answered
404		1417	06/11/2004		1225				5226	3 (d)	Agreed to be answered
407		1420	06/11/2004		1227				5230	3 (d)	Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer
408		1421	06/11/2004		1227				5231	3 (d)	Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer
409		1424	06/11/2004		1228				5235	3 (d)	Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer
410		1426	06/11/2004		1229				5237	3 (d)	Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer
411		1427	06/11/2004		1229				5238	3 (d)	Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer
412		1429	06/11/2004		1229 – 1230				5239	3 (d)	Agreed to be answered
413		1430	06/11/2004		1229 – 1230				5239	3 (d)	Agreed to be answered
414		1431	06/11/2004		1230				5240 - 5241	3 (d)	Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer
415		1432	06/11/2004		1230				5242	3 (d)	Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer
418		1447	06/11/2004		1236				5269	3 (d)	Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer
419		1449	06/11/2004		1237				5273	3 (d)	Agreed to be answered
420		1461	06/11/2004		1245				5305	3 (d)	Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer
422		1474	06/11/2004		1252 – 1253				5332	3 (d)	Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer
428		1506	06/11/2004		1274				5407	3 (d)	Agreed to be answered
429		1508	06/11/2004		1275				5409	3 (d)	Agreed to be answered
431		1513	06/11/2004		1278 – 1279				5418	3 (d)	Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer
437		822	04/15/2004		736				3188	4	Agreed to be answered
438		827	04/15/2004		743				3213 – 3217	4	Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer
440		829	04/15/2004		743				3218	4	Agreed to be answered
441		830	04/15/2004		743				3219 – 3220	4	Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer
444		836	04/15/2004		759				3307	4	Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer
445		837	04/15/2004		760				3308	4	Agreed to be answered
446		838	04/15/2004		760				3309	4	Agreed to be answered
447		840	04/15/2004		763				3318 - 3319	4	Agreed to be answered
448		841	04/15/2004		764				3320	4	Agreed to be answered
449		842	04/15/2004		764				3321	4	Agreed to be answered
452		845	04/15/2004		766				3329	4	Agreed to be answered
458		1583	08/24/2004		1346				5617	4	Agreed to be answered
480		222	04/13/2004		0332 – 0333				1475	5 (a)	Agreed to be answered
486		230	04/13/2004		0341 – 0342				1507	5 (a)	Agreed to be answered
515		706	04/15/2004		0654 – 0656				2804 – 2806	5 (b)	Agreed to be answered
519		1112	04/16/2004		1030				4502 – 4503	5 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer
563		585	04/14/2004		568				2409	6 (a)	Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer
570		606	04/14/2004		579				2468 – 2469	6 (a)	Agreed that Benyak/ Nu-Pharm need not answer
571		607	04/14/2004		580				2470	6 (a)	Agreed to be answered
593		307	04/13/2004		412				1785 – 1786	6 (b)	Agreed to answer, but not with respect to Mr. Hems
596		580	04/14/2004		0563 – 0564				2391 – 2397	6 (b)	Agreed to be answered
600		597	04/14/2004		575				2447	6 (b)	Agreed to be answered
604		611	04/14/2004		580				2472, 2474	6 (b)	Agreed to be answered
637		175	04/13/2004		292				1285	7 (a)	Agreed to be answered
645		238	04/13/2004		345				1523 - 1525	7 (a)	Agreed to be answered
650		582	04/14/2004		0565 – 0566				2401	7 (a)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger, Anthony van Doornik and Dawn Culp only
667		176	04/13/2004		295				1300	7 (b)	Agreed to be answered
669		178	04/13/2004		295				1303	7 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
670		179	04/13/2004		0295 – 0296				1304	7 (b)	Agreed to be answered
680		208	04/13/2004		314				1403	7 (b)	Agreed to be answered
681		210	04/13/2004		0316 – 0317				1405 – 1411	7 (b)	Agreed to be answered
685		214	04/13/2004		318				1417	7 (b)	Agreed to be answered
689		237	04/13/2004		345				1522	7 (b)	Agreed to be answered
695		363	04/14/2004		0473 - 0474				2006 - 2009	7 (b)	Agreed to be answered
696		364	04/14/2004		474				2010 - 2011	7 (b)	Agreed to be answered
697		365	04/14/2004		475				2017	7 (b)	Agreed to be answered
698		366	04/14/2004		0475 – 0476				2018 – 2019, 2023	7 (b)	Agreed to be answered
699		378	04/14/2004		479				2030 – 2032	7 (b)	Agreed to be answered
702		421	04/14/2004		500				2111 – 2114	7 (b)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger, Anthony van Doornik and Dawn Culp, but not Apotex
703		422	04/14/2004		500				2112, 2114	7 (b)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger, Anthony van Doornik and Dawn Culp, but not Apotex
706		433	04/14/2004		505				2138, 2139, 2142	7 (b)	Agreed to be answered
708		472	04/14/2004		520				2204 - 2205	7 (b)	Agreed to be answered
710		475	04/14/2004		521				2212	7 (b)	Agreed to be answered
712		534	04/14/2004		539				2292 – 2293	7 (b)	Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection
716		566	04/14/2004		0557 – 0558				2352 - 2362	7 (b)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief
718		568	04/14/2004		0558 – 0559				2364 – 2365	7 (b)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Dorrnik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief
724		273	04/13/2004		387				1708 – 1710	7 (c)	Agreed to be answered
728		277	04/13/2004		391				1725	7 (c)	Agreed to be answered
729		278	04/13/2004		391				1726	7 (c)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
731		280	04/13/2004		392				1730	7 (c)	Agreed to be answered
732		281	04/13/2004		393				1733 – 1735	7 (c)	Agreed to be answered
733		282	04/13/2004		394				1738	7 (c)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
737		286	04/13/2004		0395 – 0396				1743	7 (c)	Agreed to be answered
738		287	04/13/2004		396				1744 – 1746	7 (c)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger, Anthony van Doornik and Dawn Culp, but not for Mr. Hems
740		289	04/13/2004		397				1750 - 1752	7 (c)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger, Anthony van Doornik and Dawn Culp, but not for Mr. Hems
744		293	04/13/2004		399				1758	7 (c)	Agreed to be answered
749		298	04/13/2004		408				1770	7 (c)	Agreed to be answered
752		301	04/13/2004		409				1774	7 (c)	Agreed to be answered
754		303	04/13/2004		410				1779	7 (c)	Agreed to be answered
756		305	04/13/2004		411				1783	7 (c)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger, Anthony van Doornik and Dawn Culp
760		316	04/13/2004		0420 – 0421				1817 – 1822	7 (c)	Agreed to be answered
762		318	04/13/2004		0429 – 0430				1848 – 1853	7 (c)	Agreed to be answered
765		356	04/14/2004		0467 – 0469				1984, 1988, 1991	7 (c)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger, Anthony van Doornik and Dawn Culp
766		357	04/14/2004		469				1984, 1988, 1992	7 (c)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
767		358	04/14/2004		0467 – 0469				1985, 1986, 1991	7 (c)	Agreed to be answered
768		359	04/14/2004		469				1985, 1986, 1992	7 (c)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
770		361	04/14/2004		469				1992	7 (c)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
771		362	04/14/2004		0469 – 0470				1994 - 1995	7 (c)	Agreed to be answered, but not for Hems
772		381	04/14/2004		0483 – 0484				2409 – 2056	7 (c)	Agreed to be answered
773		382	04/14/2004		484				2049, 2057	7 (c)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
774		383	04/14/2004		0483 – 0484				2050 – 2056	7 (c)	Agreed to be answered
775		384	04/14/2004		484				2050, 2057	7 (c)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
776		385	04/14/2004		0483 – 0484				2051, 2056	7 (c)	Agreed to be answered
777		386	04/14/2004		484				2051 – 2057	7 (c)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
778		387	04/14/2004		484				2054, 2055, 2057	7 (c)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
779		388	04/14/2004		0483 – 0484				2054, 2055, 2056	7 (c)	Agreed to be answered
782		391	04/14/2004		486				2061	7 (c)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
786		403	04/14/2004		493				2085	7 (c)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
787		428	04/14/2004		0502 – 0503				2126 – 2128	7 (c)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Daw Culp’s knowledge, information and belief
788		429	04/14/2004		0502 – 0503				2127 - 2128	7 (c)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Daw Culp’s knowledge, information and belief
791		436	04/14/2004		505				2140 – 2142	7 (c)	Agreed to be answered
794		449	04/14/2004		509				2163	7 (c)	Agreed to be answered
797		452	04/14/2004		509				2164	7 (c)	Agreed to be answered
801		481	04/14/2004		524				2229	7 (c)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
803		483	04/14/2004		524				2232	7 (c)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
805		485	04/14/2004		525				2235	7 (c)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
807		487	04/14/2004		526				2239	7 (c)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
808		488	04/14/2004		0526 – 0527				2241 – 2242	7 (c)	Agreed to be answered under reserve of objection
817		498	04/14/2004		531				2264, 2282	7 (c)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
818		499	04/14/2004		531				2264, 2282	7 (c)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
819		500	04/14/2004		531				2264, 2282	7 (c)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
820		501	04/14/2004		531				2264, 2282	7 (c)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
821		502	04/14/2004		531				2264, 2282	7 (c)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
822		503	04/14/2004		531				2264, 2282	7 (c)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
823		504	04/14/2004		531				2264, 2282	7 (c)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
824		514	04/14/2004		537				2283	7 (c)	Agreed to be answered
825		515	04/14/2004		537				2283	7 (c)	Agreed to be answered
826		516	04/14/2004		537				2283	7 (c)	Agreed to be answered
829		519	04/14/2004		537				2283	7 (c)	Agreed to be answered
831		521	04/14/2004		537				2283	7 (c)	Agreed to be answered
832		522	04/14/2005		537				2282	7 (c)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
833		523	04/14/2005		537				2282	7 (c)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
834		538	04/14/2004		0541 – 0542				2302 – 2306	7 (c)	Agreed to be answered
837		653	04/14/2004		619				2646, 2649	8 (a)	Agreed to answered with respect to Joseph Beyger, Anthony van Doornik and Dawn Culp
840		656	04/14/2004		619				2647, 2650	8 (a)	Agreed to be answered
842		658	04/14/2004		619				2648, 2650	8 (a)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger, Anthony van Doornik and Dawn Culp
843		659	04/14/2004		620				2651, 2655	8 (a)	Agreed to be answered
846		662	04/14/2004		620				2652, 2655	8 (a)	Agreed to be answered
848		664	04/14/2004		620				2653, 2655	8 (a)	Agreed to be answered
850		668	04/14/2004		626				2685	8 (a)	Agreed to be answered
852		673	04/14/2004		629				2701	8 (a)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
853		674	04/14/2004		629				2702 – 2706	8 (a)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
854		675	04/14/2004		629				2707	8 (a)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief .
856		678	04/14/2004		632				2723	8 (a)	Agreed to be answered
862		684	04/14/2004		633				2734, 2737	8 (a)	Agreed to be answered
863		685	04/14/2004		634				2734, 2741	8 (a)	Agreed to be answered
869		702	04/14/2004		641				2766 – 2768	8 (a)	Agreed to be answered
871		704	04/14/2004		641				2767 – 2768, 2769 - 2770	8 (a)	Agreed to be answered
873		724	04/15/2004		683				2932 – 2934	8 (a)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
874		735	04/15/2004		691				2967 – 2968	8 (a)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
875		736	04/15/2004		691				2969	8 (a)	Agreed to be answered
888		584		04/14/2004	0567 - 0568				2408	8 (b)	Agreed to be answered
889		638		04/14/2004	0611 – 0612				2606 – 2609	8 (b)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief
891		640		04/14/2004	0612 – 0613				2611 – 2616, 2619	8 (b)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief
892		641		04/14/2004	613				2617 – 2618, 2619	8 (b)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief
894		644		04/14/2004	615				2624	8 (b)	Agreed to be answered
895		648		04/14/2004	617				2644 – 2634	8 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
896		649		04/14/2004	617				2635	8 (b)	Agreed to be answered
897		650		04/14/2004	617				2636	8 (b)	Agreed to be answered
898		665		04/14/2004	0625 – 0626				2680	8 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
899		666		04/14/2004	626				2681	8 (b)	Agreed to be answered
900		669		04/14/2004	0626 – 0627				2687 – 2688	8 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
901		670		04/14/2004	627				2687, 2689	8 (b)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief only.
902		671		04/14/2004	627				2687, 2690	8 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
904		686		04/14/2004	633				2735, 2737	8 (b)	Agreed to be answered
905		688		04/14/2004	634				2735, 2741	8 (b)	Agreed to be answered
906		689		04/14/2004	634				2735, 2741	8 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
907		725		04/15/2004	0683-0684				2935	8 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
908		726		04/15/2004	684				2936	8 (b)	Agreed to be answered
911		734		04/15/2004	690				2964 – 2966	8 (b)	Agreed to be answered for Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief up to “Inc” and for the rest of the question, agreed not to answer
912		738		04/15/2004	693				2981, 2985	8 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
914		740		04/15/2004	693				2983, 2985	8 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
915		741		04/15/2004	0693-0694				2984, 2985	8 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
916		742		04/15/2004	694				2981, 2986	8 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
917		743		04/15/2004	694				2982, 2986	8 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
918		744		04/15/2004	694				2983, 2986	8 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
919		745		04/15/2004	694				2984, 2986	8 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
920		746		04/15/2004	694				2981, 2987	8 (b)	Agreed to be answered
921		747		04/15/2004	694				2982, 2987	8 (b)	Agreed to be answered
922		748		04/15/2004	694				2983, 2987	8 (b)	Agreed to be answered
923		749		04/15/2004	694				2984, 2987	8 (b)	Agreed to be answered
924		750		04/15/2004	696				2981, 2996 – 2997	8 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
925		751		04/15/2004	696				2982, 2996 – 2997	8 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
926		752		04/15/2004	696				2983, 2996 - 2997	8 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
927		753		04/15/2004	696				2984, 2996 – 2997	8 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
928		754		04/15/2004	696				2982, 2996 – 2998	8 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
929		755		04/15/2004	696				2983, 2996 – 2997	8 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
930		756		04/15/2004	696				2984, 2996 – 2997	8 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
931		757		04/15/2004	696				2981, 2996 – 2997	8 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
932		758		04/15/2004	696				2981, 2996 - 2997	8 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
933		759		04/15/2004	696				2982, 2996 – 2997	8 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
934		760		04/15/2004	696				2983, 2996 – 2997	8 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
935		761		04/15/2004	696				2984, 2996 – 2997	8 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
936		762		04/15/2004	696				2981, 2996	8 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
937		763		04/15/2004	696				2982, 2998	8 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
938		764		04/15/2004	696				2983, 2998	8 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
939		765		04/15/2004	696				2984, 2998	8 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
940		766		04/15/2004	696				2984, 2998	8 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
941		767		04/15/2004	696				2982, 2998	8 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
942		768		04/15/2004	696				2983, 2998	8 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
943		769		04/15/2004	696				2981, 2998	8 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
944		770		04/15/2004	696				2981, 2998	8 (b)	Agreed to be answered
945		771		04/15/2004	696				2982, 2998	8 (b)	Agreed to be answered
946		772		04/15/2004	696				2983, 2998	8 (b)	Agreed to be answered
947		773		04/15/2004	696				2984, 2998	8 (b)	Agreed to be answered
949		775		04/15/2004	698				3004 – 3008	8 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
950		776		04/15/2004	698				3004 - 3008	8 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
951		777		04/15/2004	698				3004 – 3008	8 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
952		778		04/15/2004	698				300 4- 3008	8 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
954		780		04/15/2004	700				3014	8 (b)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief
955		781		04/15/2004	700				3015 - 3019	8 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
956		782		04/15/2004	700				3020	8 (b)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief
959		805		04/15/2004	718				3112	8 (b)	Agreed to be answered
963		887	04/15/2004		0793-0794				3462 – 3464	9 (a)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief
986		187	04/13/2004		0300 – 0301				1332 – 1337	9 (b)	Agreed to be answered
987		188	04/13/2004		301				1338	9 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
988		189	04/13/2004		0301 – 0302				1339	9 (b)	Agreed to be answered
989		190	04/13/2004		302				1340 -1342	9 (b)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief, but not Hems
990		852	04/15/2004		776				3368, 3373	9 (b)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief
991		853	04/15/2004		776				3369, 3373	9 (b)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief
992		854	04/15/2004		776				3370, 3373	9 (b)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief
993		855	04/15/2004		776				3368, 3374	9 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
994		856	04/15/2004		776				3369, 3374	9 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
995		857	04/15/2004		776				3370, 3374	9 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
996		858	04/15/2004		777				3368, 3378 – 3379	9 (b)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief
997		859	04/15/2004		777				3369, 3378 - 3379	9 (b)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief
998		860	04/15/2004		777				3370, 3378- 3379	9 (b)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief
999		861	04/15/2004		777				3368, 3380 - 3381	9 (b)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief
1000		862	04/15/2004		777				3369, 3380 – 3381	9 (b)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief
1001		863	04/15/2004		777				3370, 3380 – 3381	9 (b)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief
1002		864	04/15/2004		777				3368, 3382 – 3383	9 (b)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief
1003		865	04/15/2004		777				3369, 3382 - 3383	9 (b)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief
1004		866	04/15/2004		777				3370, 3383 – 3383	9 (b)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief
1005		867	04/15/2004		778				3368, 3384 - 3386	9 (b)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief
1006		868	04/15/2004		778				3369, 3384 – 3885	9 (b)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief
1007		869	04/15/2004		778				3370, 3384 – 3386	9 (b)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief
1008		870	04/15/2004		778				3368, 3387 – 3388	9 (b)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief
1009		871	04/15/2004		778				3369, 3387 - 3388	9 (b)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief
1010		872	04/15/2004		778				3370, 3387 – 3388	9 (b)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief
1011		873	04/15/2004		0778-0779				3368, 3389 – 3391	9 (b)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief
1012		874	04/15/2004		0778-0779				3369, 3389 - 3391	9 (b)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief
1013		875	04/15/2004		0778-0779				3370, 3389 – 3391	9 (b)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief
1014		876	04/15/2004		779				3368, 3392	9 (b)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief
1015		877	04/15/2004		779				3369, 3392	9 (b)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief
1016		878	04/15/2004		779				3370, 3392	9 (b)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger’s, Anthony van Doornik’s and Dawn Culp’s knowledge, information and belief
1017		879	04/15/2004		781				3403	9 (b)	Agreed to be answered
1018		880	04/15/2004		781				3404	9 (b)	Agreed to be answered
1019		882	04/15/2004		784				3421	9 (b)	Agreed to be answered
1020		883	04/15/2004		785				3428	9 (b)	Agreed to be answered
1023		895	04/15/2004		805				3508, 3514	9 (b)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger, Anthony van Doornik and Dawn Culp
1024		896	04/15/2004		805				3509, 3514	9 (b)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger, Anthony van Doornik and Dawn Culp
1025		897	04/15/2004		805				3510, 3514	9 (b)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger, Anthony van Doornik and Dawn Culp
1026		898	04/15/2004		805				3511, 3514	9 (b)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger, Anthony van Doornik and Dawn Culp
1027		899	04/15/2004		805				3512, 3514	9 (b)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Joseph Beyger, Anthony van Doornik and Dawn Culp
1030		928	04/15/2004		832				3637	9 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
1031		929	04/15/2004		833				3638	9 (b)	Agreed to be answered
1066		1923	08/26/2004				1640		6294	10 (b)	Agreed to be answered under reserve of objection during the hearing of the motion
1067		1924	08/26/2004				1640 – 1641		6295	10 (b)	Agreed to be answered under reserve of objection during the hearing of the motion
1100	WI026		04/22/2005							11 (a)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Benyak/Nu-Pharm’s knowledge, information and belief, subject to proper claim of privilege, under reserve of objection
1377		1683	08/25/2004			1446			5899	13 (b)	Agreed to be answered with respect to Nu-Pharm’s and Benyak’s knowledge, information and belief, under reserve of objection during the hearing of the motion
1489	258		04/13/2004			0377 – 0378			1658 – 1660	15	Agreed to be answered
1499	163		04/13/2004			279			1222	16 (b)	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
1500	164		04/13/2004			280			1223 – 1224	16 (b)	Agreed to be answered
1501	165		04/13/2004			280 – 281			1228 – 1229	16 (b)	Agreed to be answered
1507	536		04/14/2004			0539 – 0541			2297 – 2299	17	Agreed to be answered with respect to Tom Molnar and for not Trillium
1508	537		04/14/2004			541			2300 – 2301	17	Agreed to be answered with respect to Tom Molnar and not for Trillium
1514	709		04/15/2004			661			2830	17	Agreed that Benyak/Nu-Pharm need not answer
1515	710		04/15/2004			661			2831	17	Agreed to be answered
1565	1550		08/24/2004			1320			5515	18 (d)	Agreed to be answered under reserve of objection during the hearing of the motion
1566	1551		08/24/2004			1321			5524	18 (d)	Agreed to be answered under reserve of objection during the hearing of the motion
1567	1585		08/24/2004			1349			5627	18 (d)	Agreed to be answered under reserve of objection during the hearing of the motion

 

 

SCHEDULE ‘C’

 

 

 

APPENDIX “II”

 

Date: 20060809

Court File No.: T-753-99

Ottawa, Ontario, August 9, 2006

PRESENT: Madam Prothonotary Roza Aronovitch

B E T W E E N:

MERCK & CO., INC. and MERCK FROSST CANADA & CO.

            Plaintiffs

- and -

NU-PHARM INC., BERNARD SHERMAN

and RICHARD BENYAK

            Defendants

ORDER

(Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Richard Benyak and Nu-Pharm Inc. to Answer

Certain Discovery Questions)

 

            UPON motion by the plaintiffs for:

1.         an order compelling the defendants Nu-Pharm Inc. (“Nu-Pharm”) and Richard Benyak (“Benyak”) to answer the undertakings given on the examination for discovery of Benyak, in his corporate and individual capacity, held on April 6, 13, 14, 15 and 16, June 11, August, 24, 25, and 26, 2004 and March 4, 2005;

2.         an order compelling Nu-Pharm and Benyak to answer discovery questions refused on the examination for discovery of Benyak, in his personal and corporate capacity, held on April 6, 13, 14, 15 and 16, June 11, August 24, 25 and 26, 2004 and March 4, 2005;

 

3.         an order compelling Nu-Pharm and Benyak to answer discovery questions asked by way of written interrogatory;

 

4.         an order compelling Nu-Pharm and Benyak to re-attend on discovery to answer further questions, including questions arising out of the answers provided and documents produced in respect of paragraphs 1-3 above;

 

5.         an order granting the plaintiffs their costs of this motion; and

 

6.         such further and other relief as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court deem just;

 

AND UPON this Court directing that a subset of the questions listed in the plaintiffs’ categorized charts at Tab 30 of the Moving Parties’ Motion Record be dealt with first (the “Making Inquiries Questions”), said Making Inquiries Questions having been ruled upon in a separate Order;

 

AND UPON the parties having informed the Court that they had resolved certain of the remaining questions listed at said Tab 30, as indicated in Schedule “C” hereto;

AND UPON the Court having informed the parties of its decision as set out in paragraph 1 below and directed the parties to attempt to resolve others of said remaining questions, subject to appeal of the paragraph 1 decision;

 

AND UPON the parties having informed the Court thereafter that, given the Court’s direction and its decision as set out in paragraph 1 below, they had reached an agreement resolving certain of said other remaining questions as indicated in Schedule “B” hereto, which agreement includes the terms that such agreement is without prejudice to any party’s right to appeal and that if any of the principles set out in paragraph 1 below is finally overturned after appeal, then the agreement with respect to any Schedule “B” questions affected by the successful appeal will be amended to correspond therewith;

 

AND UPON reviewing the Moving Parties’ Motion Record and the responding motion record of Benyak and Nu-Pharm, and hearing the submissions of their counsel on June 6, 12 and 13, 2006 on certain unresolved remaining questions;

 

THIS COURT ORDERS that:

1.         The questions contained in categories 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the above-mentioned categorized charts of the plaintiffs are relevant and are to be answered, subject to the following three points:

(a)        only proper and reasonable questions are to be answered;  and

(b)        in answer Nu-Pharm and Benyak must provide their knowledge, information and belief;  to the extent the nature of the inquiries to be made of certain specific persons was defined in the Court’s Order on the Making Inquiries Questions, it is not altered by this Order;

(c)        questions answered under reserve of objection are answered subject only to the provisos that:

(i)         they are answered without admitting their relevance or admissibility at trial; and

(ii)        the agreement to answer them cannot be used against Nu-Pharm or Benyak in adjudicating any other question;

and thus Nu-Pharm and Benyak will answer the questions set out in Schedule “A” hereto.

 

2.         Nu-Pharm and Benyak shall produce to the plaintiffs any documents agreed or ordered to be produced, as set out in the schedules hereto, by the day which is 60 days before the commencement of:

(i)         the mediation which has been previously ordered by this Court; or

(ii)        the re-attendance provided for in paragraph 3 below;

 

whichever is earlier; provided that, notwithstanding the foregoing, Nu-Pharm and Benyak shall not be required to produce any such documents within 60 days of the date of this Order.

 

3.         Benyak is to re-attend on discovery, in his personal and corporate capacity, to answer questions that arise from the answers and documents produced as a result of this Order and the resolution and agreement referred to herein; the date by which Benyak shall re-attend will be dealt with in a separate Order.

4.         That portion of the plaintiffs’ motion dealing with those questions in categories 1-5 and 9-18 that still need to be adjudicated, and the costs of the entire motion, will be dealt with in a separate Order.

“R. Aronovitch”

____________________­­________

   Prothonotary

SCHEDULE ‘A’

 

SCHEDULE ‘B’

 

SCHEDULE ‘C’

 

APPENDIX III

 

 

Date: 20061124

Court File No.: T-753-99

Ottawa, Ontario, November 24, 2006

PRESENT:  Madam Prothonotary Roza Aronovitch

B E T W E E N:

 

MERCK & CO., INC. and MERCK FROSST CANADA & CO.

Plaintiffs

- and -

NU-PHARM INC., BERNARD SHERMAN
and RICHARD BENYAK

Defendants

ORDER

UPON motion by the plaintiffs for:

1.                  An order compelling the defendants Nu-Pharm Inc. (“Nu-Pharm”) and Richard Benyak (“Benyak”) to answer the undertakings given on the examination for discovery of Benyak, in his corporate and individual capacity, held on April 6, 13, 14, 15 and 16, June 11, August, 24, 25, and 26, 2004 and March 4, 2005;

2.         An order compelling Nu-Pharm and Benyak to answer discovery questions refused on the examination for discovery of Benyak, in his personal and corporate capacity, held on April 6, 13, 14, 15 and 16, June 11, August 24, 25 and 26, 2004 and March 4, 2005;

3.         An order compelling Nu-Pharm and Benyak to answer discovery questions asked by way of written interrogatory;

4.         An order compelling Nu-Pharm and Benyak to re-attend on discovery to answer further questions, including questions arising out of the answers provided and documents produced in respect of paragraphs 1-3 above;

5.         An order granting the plaintiffs their costs of this motion; and

6.         Such further and other relief as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court deem just;

AND UPON this Court directing that a subset of the questions listed in the plaintiffs’ categorized charts at Tab 30 of the Moving Parties' Motion Record be dealt with first (the “Making Inquiries Questions”), said Making Inquiries Questions having been ruled upon in the Making Inquiries Order of August 9, 2006 (“MIO”);

AND UPON the Court having informed the parties of its general decision with respect to categories 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of said charts and upon the Court and the parties having then dealt with certain specific questions in those categories, said questions having been ruled upon in the Certain Discovery Questions Order of August 9, 2006 (“CDQO”);

AND UPON the Parties having informed the Court that they had resolved certain of the questions remaining outstanding on this motion, as indicated in Schedule “C” hereto;

AND UPON the parties having agreed that questions listed in Schedule “D” hereto are undertakings, are outstanding, and will be answered by Nu-Pharm and Benyak;

AND UPON the Court having informed the parties of its decisions as set out in paragraph 1 below and directed the parties to attempt to resolve others of said remaining questions, subject to appeal of the paragraph 1 decision;

AND UPON the Parties having informed the Court thereafter that, given the Court’s direction and decisions set out in paragraph 1 below, the MIO and the CDQO, they had reached an agreement resolving certain of said other outstanding questions as indicated in Schedule “B” hereto, which agreement includes the terms that such agreement is without prejudice to any party’s right to appeal and that if any of the principles set out in paragraph 1 of this Order, the MIO or the CDQO is finally overturned after appeal, then the agreement with respect to any Schedule “B” questions affected by the successful appeal will be amended to correspond therewith;

AND UPON reviewing the Moving Parties’ Motion Record and the responding motion record of Benyak and Nu-Pharm, and hearing the submissions of their counsel on October 18 – 20, 2006, on certain unresolved remaining questions:

 

THIS COURT ORDERS that:

5.                  (a)        Nu-Pharm and Benyak will answer the questions set out in Schedule “A” hereto; they must provide their knowledge, information and belief, having made the inquiries contemplated by Rule 241;

(b)        Question 281 will be stood down and not dealt with by the parties or the Court until an answer to question 280 is provided;

(c)        Question 1579(f) will be stood down and not dealt with by the parties or the Court until Benyak answers (e); and

(d)        At this time Nu-Pharm and Benyak need make no inquiries of, nor any requests for documents from, Beyger, Culp, Van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium, or Saban beyond any previously ordered on this motion and any previously undertaken to be made; the questions listed in Schedule “E” hereto, to the extent they involve inquiries of such persons, will be stood down and not dealt with by the parties or the Court until the results of the inquiries and requests previously ordered are known.

6.                  Unless ordered otherwise in respect of any particular document or question in the MIO or the CDQO, Nu-Pharm and Benyak shall produce to the plaintiffs:

(a)        copies of all documents ordered, agreed or undertaken to be produced; and

(b)        written answers to all questions ordered, agreed or undertaken to be answered;

as reflected in this Order, the MIO and the CDQO, by December 20, 2006; except that the documents to be produced in answer to questions 1533, 1564 and 1576, to the extent they differ from those to be produced in answer to the other Category 18 questions ordered answered, need not be produced until January 20, 2007.

7.                  Benyak is to re-attend on discovery, in his personal and corporate capacity, to answer questions that arise from the answers and documents produced as a result of this Order, and the resolutions and agreements referred to herein; the date by which Benyak shall re-attend will be dealt with in a separate Order.

8.                  That portion of the plaintiffs’ motion that still needs to be adjudicated, and the costs of the motion (other than as dealt with in the following paragraph), will be dealt with in a separate Order.

9.                  The plaintiffs are awarded the costs of the hearing of this motion on October 18-20, 2006, at the high end of Column V of Tariff B, for two counsel, including disbursements, in any event of the cause; said costs include a disbursement of $2000, which represents the plaintiffs’ cost of photocopying for this motion pro-rated to those three days; said costs are payable by Nu-Pharm and Benyak, but not forthwith.

“R. Aronovitch”

 

Court File No. T-753-99

This is Schedule “A” to the Order of November 24, 2006

Court File No. T-753-99

This is Schedule “B” to the Order of November 24, 2006

No	Reqstno	Discdate	Pageno	Questno	Category	Disposition
16	920	04/15/2004	824	3591-3592	1 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
17	921	04/15/2004	824	3593-3594	1 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
19	1968	08/26/2004	1669	6367	1 (b)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
20	2079	08/26/2004	1775	6598 – 6599	1 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
30	309	04/13/2004	413	1790	1 (c)	Agreed to answer
31	310	04/13/2004	413	1792	1 (c)	Agreed to answer
34	443	04/14/2004	507	2152	1 (c)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban   See also Schedule E
35	444	04/14/2004	507	2153	1 (c)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban   See also Schedule E
36	462	04/14/2004	517	2191 – 2192	1 (c)	Agreed to answer
41	489	04/14/2004	527	2243	1 (c)	Agreed to answer
46	543	04/14/2004	0543 - 0544	2307 – 2308	1 (c)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
47	544	04/14/2004	545	2309 – 2310	1 (c)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban   See also Schedule E
48	545	04/14/2004	0545 - 0546	2311	1 (c)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
49	546	04/14/2004	546	2312	1 (c)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban.   See also Schedule E
51	570	04/14/2004	559	2366	1 (c)	Agreed to answer
52	571	04/14/2004	559	2368	1 (c)	Agreed to answer
53	572	04/14/2004	559	2369	1 (c)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
54	573	04/14/2004	0559 - 0560	2370	1 (c)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban.   See also Schedule E
55	574	04/14/2004	560	2371	1 (c)	Agreed to answer
56	575	04/14/2004	560	2372	1 (c)	Agreed to answer
57	642	04/14/2004	614	2620 – 2621	1 (c)	Will produce if Nu-Pharm has the document; will not ask Novex.
71	247	04/13/2004	365	1615	2 (a)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
72	265	04/13/2004	380	1673	2 (a)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
77	375	04/14/2004	478	2026 – 2027	2 (a)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Molnar’s knowledge, information and belief
79	377	04/14/2004	0478 - 0479	2029	2 (a)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
80	400	04/14/2004	491	2080 – 0281	2 (a)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban See also Schedule E
84	455	04/14/2004	0510 - 0511	2168 – 2170	2 (a)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
85	457	04/14/2004	0513 - 0514	2182	2 (a) 20 (h)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban   See also Schedule E
86	458	04/14/2004	514	2183	2 (a)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban   See also Schedule E
89	783	04/15/2004	702	3029-3030	2 (a)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban   See also Schedule E
91	839	04/15/2004	0760-0761	3310-3312	2 (a) 20 (h)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban   See also Schedule E
92	847	04/15/2004	0768-0769	3334-3336	2 (a) 20 (h)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban [yes or no answer]
93	893	04/15/2004	802	3502	2 (a)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban [yes or no answer]
94	907	04/15/2004	808	3531	2 (a)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban [yes or no answer]
95	913	04/15/2004	811	3547	2 (a)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban [yes or no answer]
96	1102	04/16/2004	1017	4452	2 (a) 20 (h)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban   See also Schedule E
97	1114	04/16/2004	1032	4510-4511	2 (a) 20 (e)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
99	1511	06/11/2004	1277	5413	2 (a) 20 (b)	Will ask Trillium or explain 'answered'
101	1523	06/11/2004	1292	5458 – 5460	2 (a)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
102	1930	08/26/2004	1644	6301	2 (a)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
103	1931	08/26/2004	1645 - 1646	6301	2 (a)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
108	1988	08/26/2004	1683 - 1684	6393 – 6394	2 (a) 20 (h)	Benyak agrees to answer to Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
113	138	04/13/2004	254	1121	2 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
114	139	04/13/2004	254	1122	2 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban   See also Schedule E
115	158	04/13/2004	274	1204	2 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban   See also Schedule E
116	270	04/13/2004	385	1695 – 1696	2 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban [yes or no answer]
118	392	04/14/2004	486	2062	2 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
119	393	04/14/2004	486	2063	2 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
120	394	04/14/2004	487	2064	2 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
121	395	04/14/2004	487	2065	2 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
122	396	04/14/2004	488	2066	2 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
123	397	04/14/2004	488	2067	2 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
124	404	04/14/2004	493	2086 – 2087	2 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
125	408	04/14/2004	494	2089 - 2090	2 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
129	417	04/14/2004	498	2107	2 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban   See also Schedule E
131	419	04/14/2004	0498 - 0499	2108 – 2110	2 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
133	425	04/14/2004	501	2119	2 (b) 20 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban; Stand down with respect to Trillium; See Schedule “E”
134	445	04/14/2004	0507 - 0508	2154 – 2156	2 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
135	446	04/14/2004	508	2157	2 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban   See also Schedule E
136	459	04/14/2004	515	2185	2 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
137	461	04/14/2004	517	2190	2 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
138	467	04/14/2004	518	2196	2 (b) 20 (b)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
144	478	04/14/2004	522	2217	2 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban   See also Schedule E
146	505	04/14/2004	532	2267 – 2268	2 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban   See also Schedule E
147	506	04/14/2004	532	2269	2 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban   See also Schedule E
148	507	04/14/2004	533	2270	2 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban   See also Schedule E
149	508	04/14/2004	533	2271	2 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban   See also Schedule E
152	784	04/15/2004	702	3032-3033	2 (b)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
153	785	04/15/2004	702	3035	2 (b)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
154	786	04/15/2004	703	3036	2 (b)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
155	1488	06/11/2004	1262	5366 – 5367	2 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban [yes or no answer]
156	1489	06/11/2004	1262	5368	2 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban   See also Schedule E
157	1490	06/11/2004	1263	5369 – 5370	2 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban Will produce final results   See also Schedule E
158	1491	06/11/2004	1263	5371	2 (b) 20 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban Will ask Trillium for final results   See also Schedule E
159	1492	06/11/2004	1263 - 1264	5372	2 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
164	2002	08/26/2004	1693	6415	2 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
165	2004	08/26/2004	1695	6420	2 (b)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
166	2006	08/26/2004	1696	6424 – 6425	2 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
167	2036	08/26/2004	1728	6504	2 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban: a, b, d, e; Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice:  c
168	2037	08/26/2004	1729	6506	2 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
169	2038	08/26/2004	1729 - 1730	6507	2 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
171	2041	08/26/2004	1731 - 1732	6515	2 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
172	2042	08/26/2004	1732	6516 – 6517	2 (b)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
176	548	04/14/2004	547	2314	2 (c)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
177	549	04/14/2004	547	2315	2 (c)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
178	550	04/14/2004	0547 - 0548	2316	2 (c) 20 (g)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
179	551	04/14/2004	548	2317	2 (c) 20 (g)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
180	555	04/14/2004	549	2321	2 (c)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
181	560	04/14/2004	551	2327	2 (c)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
182	561	04/14/2004	551	2328	2 (c)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
183	1399	06/11/2004	1216	5197	2 (c) 20 (b)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
184	1487	06/11/2004	1261 - 1262	5363 – 5365	2 (c)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban Will ask Molnar
189	216	04/13/2004	320	1426 – 1427	2 (d)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
194	268	04/13/2004	383	1685	2 (d)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
195	511	04/14/2004	536	2276 – 2277	2 (d)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban [yes or no answer]
196	512	04/14/2004	536	2278	2 (d)	If have copy, will produce
197	513	04/14/2004	536	2279 – 2281	2 (d)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
201	645	04/14/2004	616	2630	2 (d)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban   See also Schedule E
202	646	04/14/2004	616	2631	2 (d)	Will produce if have a copy
203	647	04/14/2004	0616 – 0617	2632	2 (d) 20 (h)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
204	819	04/15/2004	735	3178 – 3180	2 (d)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
219	1029	04/16/2004	948	4178-9	3 (a) 20 (b)	Benyak agrees to answer to Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
223	1036	04/16/2004	951	4187	3 (a)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
233	1089	04/16/2004	988	4319	3 (a) 20 (b)	Will produce if provided
235	1148	06/11/2004	1062	4572 - 4575	3 (a)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
241	1200	06/11/2004	1089	4687	3 (a)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban See also Schedule E
243	1206	06/11/2004	1091 - 1092	4698 - 4699	3 (a) 20 (a)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
262	1319	06/11/2004	1170	5001 - 5002	3 (a) 20 (b)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
264	1364	06/11/2004	1195	5111	3 (a)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban   See also Schedule E
265	1366	06/11/2004	1196	5113	3 (a)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
276	1722	08/25/2004	1464 - 1465	5949 - 5950	3 (a) 20 (h)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
289	1868	08/26/2004	1594	6200	3 (a)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban. This does not create a precedent.
290	1989	08/26/2004	1684 - 1685	6397	3 (a) 20 (h)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
291	2015	08/26/2004	1703 - 1704	6446	3 (a)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Molnar's knowledge, information and belief.
292	2016	08/26/2004	1704	6446	3 (a)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Molnar's knowledge, information and belief.
293	2017	08/26/2004	1704 - 1705	6446	3 (a)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
294	2022	08/26/2004	1714	6464	3 (a)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
295	1054	04/16/2004	960	4217	3 (b) 20 (i)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
298	1124	04/16/2004	1035	4525	3 (b) 20 (h)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
299	1174	06/11/2004	1080	4645	3 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
300	1175	06/11/2004	1080 - 1081	4646	3 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
301	1181	06/11/2004	1082	4655 - 4657	3 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
302	1182	06/11/2004	1083	4658	3 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban   See also Schedule E
303	1183	06/11/2004	1083	4659	3 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban   See also Schedule E
305	1185	06/11/2004	1083 - 1084	4661 - 4663	3 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
306	1186	06/11/2004	1084	4664 - 4665	3 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban See also Schedule E
310	1222	06/11/2004	1098	4716	3 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban See also Schedule E
317	1340	06/11/2004	1183	5057	3 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
326	1806	08/25/2004	1526	6094	3 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
327	1807	08/25/2004	1527	6095	3 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
340	1276	06/11/2004	1142	4883	3 (c) 20 (h)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
341	1278	06/11/2004	1143	4889	3 (c)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
342	1715	08/25/2004	1462	5941	3 (c)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
349	1723	08/25/2004	1465	5951	3 (c) 20 (h)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
351	1725	08/25/2004	1465	5953	3 (c) 20 (h)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
360	1736	08/25/2004	1468	5967	3 (c) 20 (h)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
361	1737	08/25/2004	1468	5968	3 (c) 20 (h)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
396	1405	06/11/2004	1219	5208	3 (d)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
405	1418	06/11/2004	1225	5227	3 (d)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
406	1419	06/11/2004	1226 – 1227	5228 – 5229	3 (d)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
417	1446	06/11/2004	1236	5268	3 (d)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
421	1468	06/11/2004	1248	5316 – 5317	3 (d)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
430	1509	06/11/2004	1275 – 1276	5410	3 (d)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
434	453	04/14/2004	0509 - 0510	2165	4 20 (h)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
439	828	04/15/2004	743	3213-3217	4	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
442	831	04/15/2004	744	3221-3222	4	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
450	843	04/15/2004	765	3324	4	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
460	1689	08/25/2004	1450	5909	4 20 (h)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
465	1689	0825/2004	1450	5909	4 20 (h)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
467	1985	08/26/2004	1681	6388	4 20 (h)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
468	1986	08/26/2004	1681 - 1682	6389 - 6390	4	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
469	1987	08/26/2004	1682 - 1683	6391 - 6392	4 20 (h)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
470	2003	08/26/2004	1694	6417	4	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
471	2005	08/26/2004	1695	6422 - 6423	4	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
472	2007	08/26/2004	1697	6427	4	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
473	2034	08/26/2004	1725	6497	4 20 (h)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
491	2060	08/26/2004	1759	6574	5 (a)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
492	2061	08/26/2004	1759	6575	5 (a)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
493	2062	08/26/2004	1760	6576	5 (a)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
494	2063	08/26/2004	1760	6577	5 (a)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
495	2064	08/26/2004	1760	6578	5 (a)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
498	2071	08/26/2004	1769	6588	5 (a)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
499	2072	08/26/2004	1769 – 1770	6589	5 (a)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
505	137	04/13/2004	0252 – 0254	1115 - 1120	5 (b) 20 (e)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
506	140	04/13/2004	255	1123	5 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
507	143	04/13/2004	256	1129	5 (b) 20 (e)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
509	239	04/13/2004	0351 – 0352	1555 – 1562	5 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
510	240	04/13/2004	356	1572	5 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
513	344	04/14/2004	0458 – 0459	1961	5 (b) 20 (e)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
518	1096	04/16/2004	1005	4406	5 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
536	1994	08/26/2004	1688 – 1689	6405	5 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
540 1519	2035	08/26/2004	1726	6498	5 (b) 17	0540: Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban   1519: Duplicate of 0540
543	2049	08/26/2004	1742 – 1743	6552	5 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
544	2050	08/26/2004	1744	6555	5 (b) 20 (h)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
545	2051	08/26/2004	1744	6556	5 (b) 20 (h)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
546	2070	08/26/2004	1765 – 1766	6587	5 (b) 20 (h)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
551	2080	08/26/2004	1775 – 1776	6600	5 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
552	2081	08/26/2004	1776	6601	5 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
553	1139	04/16/2004	1045	4557	5 (c)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
554	1140	04/16/2004	1045	4558	5 (c)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
555	1755	08/25/2004	1481 – 1482	6002 – 3	5 (c)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
556	1756	08/25/2004	1482	6004	5 (c)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
557	1757	08/25/2004	1482	6005	5 (c) 20 (h)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
558	1759	08/25/2004	1483	6007	5 (c)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
559	1760	08/25/2004	1483	6008	5 (c)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
560	1766	08/25/2004	1487	6015	5 (c)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
561	1773	08/25/2004	1491	6029	5 (c)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
964	889	04/15/2004	799	3485	9 (a)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
974	1698	04/15/2004	1455	5920	9 (a) 20 (h)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
1033	1696	08/25/2004	1454	5918	9 (b) 20 (h)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
1041	1934	08/26/2004	1648	6305	10 (a)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
1044	1946	08/26/2004	1654 – 1655	6325	10 (a)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
1053	1967	08/26/2004	1668 – 1669	6366	10 (a)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
1068	1936	08/26/2004	1650	6308	10 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
1077	1953	08/26/2004	1661	6343	10 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
1078	1954	08/26/2004	1661	6345	10 (b)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
1098	1991	08/26/2004	1685	6398	2 (b) 11 (a)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
1333	1637	08/24/2004	1397 - 1398	5786	13 (b) 20 (h)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
1350	1655	08/24/2004	1413	5821	13 (b) 20 (h)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
1351	1656	08/24/2004	1413	5822 - 5823	13 (b) 20 (h)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
1390	4	04/06/2004	0052 - 0053	180	13 (c)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
1391	5	04/06/2004	55	194	13 (c)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
1405	73	04/06/2004	132	550	13 (c)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban Answer from 1992
1406	116	04/06/2004	0182 - 0183	819	13 (c)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban Answer from 1992
1407	117	04/06/2004	0183 - 0184	820	13 (c)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban Answer from 1992
1408	118	04/06/2004	184	821	13 (c)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban Answer from 1992
1412	1527	08/23/2004	1300	5465	13 (c) 20 (h)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban Answer from 1992 onwards
1417	1534	08/23/2004	1305	5472	13 (c)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
1428	1571	08/24/2004	1334	5575	13 (c) 20 (h)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
1430	1648	08/24/2004	1411	5814	13 (b) 13 (c)	Category 13 (b): Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban   Question duplicated in category 13 (c)
1435	1678	08/25/2004	1441	5887 – 5889	13 (b) 13 (c)	Withdrawn without prejudice
1438	1741	08/25/2004	1470	5973	13 (c) 20 (h)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
1439	1742	08/25/2004	1474	5976	13 (c)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
1444	1747	08/25/2004	1477	5985	13 (c)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
1445	1748	08/25/2004	1477 - 1478	5986 - 5988	13 (c)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
1446	1749	08/25/2004	1478	5989 - 5990	13 (c)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
1448	1751	08/25/2004	1479	5996	13 (c) 20 (h)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
1459	1879	08/26/2004	1603 - 1604	6220	13 (c)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
1466	2078	08/26/2004	1774	6596 – 6597	4 5 (b) 6 (b) 8 (b) 9 (b) 13 (c)	First part, down to “for the assistance” is dealt with in Schedule “A”. Second part from “and whether” to the end:  Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
1484	1776	08/25/2004	1492	6032	13 (e)	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
1490	440	04/14/2004	0506	2148	15	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
1491	441	04/14/2004	0506	2149	15	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
1505	442	04/14/2004	0506 - 0507	2150	17	Nu-Pharm and Benyak agree to answer to Nu-Pharm and Benyak's knowledge, information and belief, having made inquiries, except of those Nu-Pharm says were addressed in the “Making Inquiries Order” of August 9, 2006, namely: Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and Saban; similarly, Nu-Pharm will not seek documents from Beyger, Culp, van Doornik, Apotex, Novex Pharma, Delmar, Hems, BCI, Signa, Trillium and/or Saban
1521	620	04/14/2004	586	2508 - 2509	18 (a)	Agreed to answer.  Privileged notes can be expurgated from the documents produced.  The only documents not to be produced are those where Nu-Pharm is bound to a third party by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order.  Where a document is not produced as being caught by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order to a third party, Nu-Pharm is to stipulate that the document will not be produced for that reason, and specify what is the nature of that Order or undertaking.
1522	621	04/14/2004	0586 - 0587	2510	18 (a)	Agreed to answer.  Privileged notes can be expurgated from the documents produced.  The only documents not to be produced are those where Nu-Pharm is bound to a third party by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order.  Where a document is not produced as being caught by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order to a third party, Nu-Pharm is to stipulate that the document will not be produced for that reason, and specify what is the nature of that Order or undertaking.
1523	622	04/14/2004	587	2511	18 (a)	Agreed to answer.  Privileged notes can be expurgated from the documents produced.  The only documents not to be produced are those where Nu-Pharm is bound to a third party by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order.  Where a document is not produced as being caught by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order to a third party, Nu-Pharm is to stipulate that the document will not be produced for that reason, and specify what is the nature of that Order or undertaking.
1524	925	04/15/2004	826	3598	18 (a)	Agreed to answer.  Privileged notes can be expurgated from the documents produced.  The only documents not to be produced are those where Nu-Pharm is bound to a third party by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order.  Where a document is not produced as being caught by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order to a third party, Nu-Pharm is to stipulate that the document will not be produced for that reason, and specify what is the nature of that Order or undertaking.
1525	926	04/15/2004	827	3599	18 (a)	Agreed to answer.  Privileged notes can be expurgated from the documents produced.  The only documents not to be produced are those where Nu-Pharm is bound to a third party by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order.  Where a document is not produced as being caught by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order to a third party, Nu-Pharm is to stipulate that the document will not be produced for that reason, and specify what is the nature of that Order or undertaking.
1526	927	04/15/2004	827	3600	18 (a)	Agreed to answer.  Privileged notes can be expurgated from the documents produced.  The only documents not to be produced are those where Nu-Pharm is bound to a third party by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order.  Where a document is not produced as being caught by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order to a third party, Nu-Pharm is to stipulate that the document will not be produced for that reason, and specify what is the nature of that Order or undertaking.
1527	1889	08/26/2004	1611	6235	18 (a) 20 (h)	Agreed to answer.  Privileged notes can be expurgated from the documents produced.  The only documents not to be produced are those where Nu-Pharm is bound to a third party by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order.  Where a document is not produced as being caught by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order to a third party, Nu-Pharm is to stipulate that the document will not be produced for that reason, and specify what is the nature of that Order or undertaking.
1534	325	04/13/2004	434	1869	18 (b)	Agreed to answer.  Privileged notes can be expurgated from the documents produced.  The only documents not to be produced are those where Nu-Pharm is bound to a third party by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order.  Where a document is not produced as being caught by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order to a third party, Nu-Pharm is to stipulate that the document will not be produced for that reason, and specify what is the nature of that Order or undertaking.
1535	326	04/13/2004	434	1870	18 (b)	Agreed to answer.  Privileged notes can be expurgated from the documents produced.  The only documents not to be produced are those where Nu-Pharm is bound to a third party by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order.  Where a document is not produced as being caught by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order to a third party, Nu-Pharm is to stipulate that the document will not be produced for that reason, and specify what is the nature of that Order or undertaking.
1537	1598	08/24/2004	1360	5669	18 (b)	Agreed to answer
1538	1599	08/24/2004	1360	5671	18 (b)	Agreed to answer
1539	1600	08/24/2004	1361	5673	18 (b)	Agreed to answer
1540	1601	08/24/2004	1361	5677	18 (b)	Agreed to answer
1541	1602	08/24/2004	1362	5678	18 (b)	Agreed to answer
1542	1685	08/25/2004	1447	5903	13 (b) 18(b)	Agreed to answer
1543	1686	08/25/2004	1448	5904	18 (b)	Agreed to answer
1545	1899	08/26/2004	1616	6246	18 (b)	Agreed to answer
1546	1900	08/26/2004	1617 - 1619	6248 - 6249	18 (b) 20 (h)	Agreed to answer
1547	1904	08/26/2004	1623 - 1624	6255	18 (b) 20 (h)	Agreed to answer
1548	1778	08/25/2004	1493 - 1494	6036	18 (c)	Agreed to answer
1550	1833	08/25/2004	1555	6138	18 (c) 20 (j)	Withdrawn without prejudice
1551	1836	08/25/2004	1559 - 1560	6147	18 (c) 20 (j)	Agreed to answer.  Privileged notes can be expurgated from the documents produced.  The only documents not to be produced are those where Nu-Pharm is bound to a third party by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order.  Where a document is not produced as being caught by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order to a third party, Nu-Pharm is to stipulate that the document will not be produced for that reason, and specify what is the nature of that Order or undertaking.
1554	1866	08/25/2004	1585 - 1586	6194	18 (c) 20 (h)	Agreed to answer
1556	2026	08/26/2004	1717	6472	18 (c)	Agreed to answer
1557	2027	08/26/2004	1717	6473	18 (c)	Agreed to answer
1558	2028	08/26/2004	1717 - 1718	6474	18 (c)	Agreed to answer
1559	811	04/15/2004	723	3135	18 (d)	Agreed to answer.  Privileged notes can be expurgated from the documents produced.  The only documents not to be produced are those where Nu-Pharm is bound to a third party by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order.  Where a document is not produced as being caught by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order to a third party, Nu-Pharm is to stipulate that the document will not be produced for that reason, and specify what is the nature of that Order or undertaking.
1560	812	04/15/2004	723	3136	18 (d)	Agreed to answer.  Privileged notes can be expurgated from the documents produced.  The only documents not to be produced are those where Nu-Pharm is bound to a third party by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order.  Where a document is not produced as being caught by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order to a third party, Nu-Pharm is to stipulate that the document will not be produced for that reason, and specify what is the nature of that Order or undertaking.
1561	813	04/15/2004	724	3137	18 (d)	Agreed to answer.  Privileged notes can be expurgated from the documents produced.  The only documents not to be produced are those where Nu-Pharm is bound to a third party by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order.  Where a document is not produced as being caught by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order to a third party, Nu-Pharm is to stipulate that the document will not be produced for that reason, and specify what is the nature of that Order or undertaking.
1562	924	04/15/2004	826	3596	18 (d)	Agreed to answer
1563	1145	04/16/2004	1050	4569	18 (d)	Withdrawn without prejudice
1568	1588	08/24/2004	1351	5635	18 (d)	Agreed to answer
1569	1603	08/24/2004	1365	5687	18 (d) 20 (h)	Agreed to answer
1571	1828	08/25/2004	1548 - 1549	6129	18 (d)	Agreed to answer
1575	1832	08/25/2004	1551 - 1554	6136	18 (d)	Agreed to answer. The only documents not to be produced are those where Nu-Pharm is bound to a third party by an implied undertaking or a Confidentiality Order.  Where a document is not produced as being caught by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order to a third party, Nu-Pharm is to stipulate that the document will not be produced for that reason, and specify what is the nature of that Order or undertaking.
1583	1921	08/26/2004	1640	6292	18 (d)	Agreed to answer
1585	1925	08/26/2004	1641	6296	18 (d) 20 (h)	Agreed to answer
1586	1926	08/26/2004	1641 – 1642	6297	18 (d)	Agreed to answer.  Privileged notes can be expurgated from the documents produced.  The only documents not to be produced are those where Nu-Pharm is bound to a third party by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order.  Where a document is not produced as being caught by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order to a third party, Nu-Pharm is to stipulate that the document will not be produced for that reason, and specify what is the nature of that Order or undertaking.
1589	1929	08/26/2004	1642	6300	18 (d)	Agreed to answer, subject to a proper claim for privilege and if litigation privilege is claimed, Nu-Pharm/Benyak shall specifically assert that privilege was not waived by providing it to Sherman
1590	1932	08/26/2004	1646	6302	18 (d) 20 (j)	Agreed to answer.  Privileged notes can be expurgated from the documents produced.  The only documents not to be produced are those where Nu-Pharm is bound to a third party by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order.  Where a document is not produced as being caught by an implied undertaking or Confidentiality Order to a third party, Nu-Pharm is to stipulate that the document will not be produced for that reason, and specify what is the nature of that Order or undertaking.

Court File No. T-753-99

This is Schedule “C” to the Order of November 24, 2006

 

No	Reqstno	Discdate	Pageno	Questno	Category	Disposition
	3	04/06/2004	49	170		Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	122	04/06/2004	203	0918-9		Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	149	04/13/2004	261	1146		Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	234	04/13/2004	344	1518		Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	271	04/13/2004	386	1701		Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	322	04/13/2004	433	1866		Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	324	04/13/2004	434	1868		Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	327	04/13/2004	435	1871		Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	334	04/14/2004	450	1912		Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	335	04/14/2004	450	1913		Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	348	04/14/2004	464	1973		Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	423	04/14/2004	500	2112, 2114		Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	476	04/14/2004	521	2213		Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	592	04/14/2004	574	2439		Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	595	04/14/2004	0575 – 0576	2444		Withdrawn without prejudice
	598	04/14/2004	0575 - 0576	2448		Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	605	04/14/2004	578	2460		Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	615	04/14/2004	0583 - 0584	2493 - 2497		Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	618	04/14/2004	0585 - 0586	2504 - 2505		Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	619	04/14/2004	586	2506 - 2507		Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	623	04/14/2004	588	2514, 2515		Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	697	04/14/2004	640	2764 - 2765		Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	698	04/14/2004	0640 - 0641	2764 - 2765, 2766 - 2767		Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	699	04/14/2004	641	2764 - 2765, 2768		Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	714	04/15/2004	665	2851-2852		Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	930	04/15/2004	833	3643		Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	1057	04/16/2004	0961-0962	4222-4223		Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	1115	04/16/2004	1032 - 1033	4512		Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	1116	04/16/2004	1033	4513		Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	1155	06/11/2004	1066	4586 - 4587		Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	1507	06/11/2004	1274 - 1275	5408		Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	1515	06/11/2004	1280	5421		Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	1520	06/11/2004	1287	5442		Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	1572	08/24/2004	1334	5576		Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	1573	08/24/2004	1334 - 1335	5577		Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	1729	08/25/2004	1467	5959		Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	1769	08/25/2004	1488	6018		Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	1771	08/25/2004	1488 - 1489	6020		Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	1809	08/25/2004	1530	6101		Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	1884	08/26/2004	1609 - 1610	6229		Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	1961	08/26/2004	1666	6358		Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	1990	08/26/2004	1685	6398		Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	2018	08/26/2004	1706 - 1710	6454 - 6456		Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	2020	08/26/2004	1709 - 1711	6456 - 6457		Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	WI001	04/22/2005				Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	WI002	04/22/2005				Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	WI005	04/22/2005				Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	WI006	04/22/2005				Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	WI008	04/22/2005				Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	WI011	04/22/2005				Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	WI012	04/22/2005				Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	WI015	04/22/2005				Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	WI017	04/22/2005				Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	WI022	04/22/2005				Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	WI023	04/22/2005				Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	WI032	04/22/2005				Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	WI034	04/22/2005				Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	WI038	04/22/2005				Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	WI040	04/22/2005				Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	WI041	04/22/2005				Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
	WI043	04/22/2005				Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
3	182	04/13/2004	299	1325 - 1326	1 (b)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
65	1784	08/25/2004	1501	6051	1 (c)	Answered as indicated in Respondent's Position column in chart
90	795	04/15/2004	714	3085	2 (a)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
104	1970	08/26/2004	1670	6370	2 (a) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
109	2001	08/26/2004	1692 - 1693	6414	2 (a) 20 (h)	Answered as indicated in Respondent's Position in column chart
110	2008	08/26/2004	1697 - 1698	6431	2 (a)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
111	2009	08/26/2004	1699	6434	2 (a)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
112	2029	08/26/2004	1718 - 1719	6475	2 (a)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
167	2036	08/26/2004	1728	6504	2 (b)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice:  c
173	2045	08/26/2004	1735 - 1736	6528 - 6530	2 (b)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
190	217	04/13/2004	320	1428	2 (d)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
205	824	04/15/2004	738	3194	2 (d)	Answered as indicated in Respondent's Position column in chart
206	931	04/15/2004	834	3644	2 (d)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
209	2068	08/26/2004	1765	6585	2 (d) 20 (h)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
211	728	04/15/2004	685	2939-2940	3 (a)	Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection
215	938	04/16/2004	857	3700	3 (a) 20 (k)	Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection
228	1053	04/16/2004	960	4216	3 (a) 20 (i)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
232	1088	04/16/2004	0987 - 0988	4318	3 (a) 20 (b)	Answered as indicated in Respondent's Position column in chart
234	1100	04/16/2004	1015	4449-4450	3 (a)	Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection
240	1159	06/11/2004	1070 - 1071	4603 - 4605	3 (a)	Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection
244	1207	06/11/2004	1092	4699	3 (a)	Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection
245	1208	06/11/2004	1092	4700	3 (a)	Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection
246	1209	06/11/2004	1092	4701	3 (a)	Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection
247	1210	06/11/2004	1093	4702	3 (a)	Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection
248	1214	06/11/2004	1094	4706	3 (a)	Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection
249	1215	06/11/2004	1094 - 1095	4707	3 (a)	Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection
250	1216	06/11/2004	1095	4708	3 (a)	Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection
251	1217	06/11/2004	1095	4709	3 (a)	Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection
257	1254	06/11/2004	1128	4831	3 (a)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
263	1363	06/11/2004	1193 - 1194	5103 - 5104	3 (a)	Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection
272	1586	08/24/2004	1350	5631	3 (a)	Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection
274	1699	08/25/20004	1455	5921	3 (a) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection
275	1714	08/25/2004	1462	5940	3 (a) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection
283	1814	08/25/2004	1533	6104	3 (a) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection
286	1817	08/25/2004	1536	6107	3 (a) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection
287	1818	08/25/2004	1538	6108	3 (a)	Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection
288	1819	08/25/2004	1538 - 1539	6109	3 (a)	Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection
334	1268	06/11/2004	1137	4862	3 (c) 20 (f)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
336	1270	06/11/2004	1138 - 1139	4869	3 (c) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection
345	1718	08/25/2004	1463	5944 - 5945	3 (c) 20 (h)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
346	1719	08/25/2004	1464	5946	3 (c) 20 (h)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
347	1720	08/25/2004	1464	5947	3 (c) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection
350	1724	08/25/2004	1465	5952	3 (c) 20 (h)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
359	1734	08/25/2004	1468	5965	3 (c) 20 (h)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
362	1738	08/25/2004	1469	5969	3 (c) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection
363	1811	08/25/2004	1530 - 1541	6111	3 (c) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection
364	1820	08/25/2004	1541 - 1542	6112	3 (c) 20 (h)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
365	1821	08/25/2004	1541 - 1542	6112	3 (c) 20 (h)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
423	1500	06/11/2004	1270	5395	3 (d)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
424	1501	06/11/2004	1270	5396	3 (d)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
432	233	04/13/2004	344	1516 - 1517	4 20 (k)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
435	477	04/14/2004	0521 - 0522	2214 - 2216	4	Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection
443	835	04/15/2004	751	3252	4 20 (k)	Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection
455	916	04/15/2004	816	3569	4	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
457	1581	08/24/2004	1345	5615	4	Answered in answers to undertakings delivered May 19, 2006
461	1690	08/25/2004	1452	5910	4 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection
462	1691	08/25/2004	1452	5911	4	Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection
463	1692	08/25/2004	1452	5912	4	Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection
478	220	04/13/2004	328	1457	5 (a)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
479	221	04/13/2004	329	1458	5 (a)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
481	223	04/13/2004	0334 - 0335	1476	5 (a)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
482	224	04/13/2004	335	1477	5 (a)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
483	225	04/13/2004	335	1478	5 (a)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
484	226	04/13/2004	335	1479	5 (a)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
485	228	04/13/2004	339	1499	5 (a)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
487	2053	08/26/2004	1755	6567	5 (a)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
489	2058	08/26/2004	1758	6572	5 (a) 20 (g)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
490	2059	08/26/2004	1759	6573	5 (a)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
496	2066	08/26/2004	1763 - 1764	6580	5 (a)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
497	2069	08/26/2004	1765	6586	5 (a)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
500	125	04/06/2004	205	0931 - 0932	5 (b) 20 (e)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
501	128	04/06/2004	208	944	5 (b) 20 (e)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
502	129	04/06/2004	209	945	5 (b) 20 (e)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
503	130	04/06/2004	209	949	5 (b) 20 (e)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
504	131	04/06/2004	210	950	5 (b)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
508	153	04/13/2004	264	1157	5 (b) 20 (a)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
511	241	04/13/2004	0361 - 0362	1597 - 1599	5 (b)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
512	242	04/13/2004	362	1600	5 (b) 20 (e)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
514	705	04/15/2004	652	2800	5 (b)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
516	817	04/15/2004	733	3168-3169	5 (b)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
517	818	04/15/2004	733	3170	5 (b)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
521	1135	04/16/2004	1043	4554	5 (b) 20 (e)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
522	1136	04/16/2004	1044	4554	5 (b)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
523	1137	04/16/2004	1044 - 1045	4555	5 (b)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
525	1141	04/16/2004	1047	4562	5 (b)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
526	1142	04/16/2004	1047 - 1048	4563	5 (b)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
527	1143	04/16/2004	1048	4564	5 (b)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
528	1144	04/16/2004	1048	4566	5 (b)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
529	1739	08/25/2004	1469	5970	5 (b) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
530	1740	08/25/2004	1470	5971	5 (b) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
531	1753	08/25/2004	1480	5998	5 (b)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
532	1754	08/25/2004	1481	6000	5 (b)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
533	1758	08/25/2004	1482	6006	5 (b)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
535	1780	08/25/2004	1495	6040	5 (b)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
537	2025	08/26/2004	1716	6471	5 (b)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
538	2031	08/26/2004	1721 - 1722	6488	5 (b) 20 (e)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
0539 1518	2033	08/26/2004	1725	6495	5 (b) 17	0539: Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice 1518: Duplicate of 0539
541	2043	08/26/2004	1733	6520	5 (b) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
542	2044	08/26/2004	1734	6522	5 (b)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
565	588	04/14/2004	571	2429	6 (a) 20 (k)	Answered in answers to undertakings delivered May 19, 2006
566	591	04/14/2004	573	2437	6 (a) 20 (k)	Answered in answers to undertakings delivered May 19, 2006
567	601	04/14/2004	576	2451	6 (a) 20 (k)	Answered in answers to undertakings delivered May 19, 2006
569	604	04/14/2004	578	2459	6 (a) 20 (k)	Answered in answers to undertakings delivered May 19, 2006
576	1874	08/26/2004	1600 - 1601	6205	6 (a)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice as a result of new productions delivered by the respondents on June 8, 2006
577	1875	08/26/2004	1601	6216	6 (a) 20 (h)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice as a result of new productions delivered by the respondents on June 8, 2006
578	1876	08/26/2004	1602	6217	6 (a) 20 (h)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice as a result of new productions delivered by the respondents on June 8, 2006
579	1881	08/26/2004	1606 - 1607	6225	6 (a) 20 (h)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice as a result of new productions delivered by the respondents on June 8, 2006
585	1901	08/26/2004	1619 - 1620	6250	6 (a) 20 (h)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice as a result of new productions delivered by the respondents on June 8, 2006
586	1902	08/26/2004	1620	6252 - 6253	6 (a) 20 (h)	Answered in answers to undertakings delivered May 19, 2006
587	1903	08/26/2004	1623	6254	6 (a)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice as a result of new productions delivered by the respondents on June 8, 2006
592	306	04/13/2004	411	1785	6 (b)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice as a result of new productions delivered by the respondents on June 8, 2006
594	321	04/13/2004	432	1864	6 (b)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice as a result of new productions delivered by the respondents on June 8, 2006
597	593	04/14/2004	574	2440 - 2442	6 (b)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice as a result of new productions delivered by the respondents on June 8, 2006
607	1549	08/24/2004	1318	5509	6 (b) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection
644	209	04/13/2004	315	1404	7 (a)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
646	243	04/13/2004	363	1607 - 1608	7 (a) 20 (k)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
647	244	04/13/2004	363	1609	7 (a) 20 (k)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice
1034	1697	08/25/20004	1455	5919	9 (b) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection
1093	WI004	04/22/2005			11 (a)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1095	WI019	04/22/2005			11 (a)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1097	WI024	04/22/2005			11 (a)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1106	WI035	04/22/2005			11 (a)	Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
1108	WI037	04/22/2005			11 (a)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1117	WI054	04/22/2005			11 (b)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1120	WI052	04/22/2005			11 (b)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1121	WI053	04/22/2005			11 (b)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1123	2102	03/04/2005	1806	6647	11 (b)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1124	2103	03/04/2005	1807	6648	11 (b)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1131	2111	03/04/2005	1815 - 1816	6663	11 (c)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1134	2092	03/04/2005	1796	6635	11 (c)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1135	2106	03/04/2005	1811 - 1813	6654 - 6658	11 (c)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1142 1180	1909	08/26/2004	1630	6264	11 (d) 11 (e)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1146	1913	08/26/2004	1632	6270	11 (d)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1149	2085	03/04/2005	1784	6608	11 (d)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1162	2123	03/04/2005	1827	6688	11 (d)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1175	2203	03/04/2005	1909 - 1910	6883	11 (d)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1176	2204	03/04/2005	1910 - 1911	6884	11 (d)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1195	2151	03/04/2005	1856	6758	11 (e)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1209	2158	03/04/2005	1867	6778	11 (f) 20 (i)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1212	2163	03/04/2005	1872 - 1873	6790	11 (f)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1216	2170	03/04/2005	1879 - 1881	6807	11 (f)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1222	2177	03/04/2005	1887	6822	11 (f)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1223	2179	03/04/2005	1891 - 1892	6835	11 (f)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1229	2189	03/04/2005	1901	6859	11 (f)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1232	2194	03/04/2005	1904	6868 - 6869	11 (f)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1239	WI046	04/22/2005			11 (f)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1248	2231	03/04/2005	1941	6939	11 (i)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1269	1950	08/26/2004	1658 - 1659	6337	12 20 (h)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1270	1951	08/26/2004	1658 - 1659	6337	12	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1271	20	04/06/2004	0065 - 0066	0249 - 0250	13 (a)	Withdrawn without prejudice
1272	21	04/06/2004	66	251	13 (a)	Withdrawn without prejudice
1273	27	04/06/2004	0069 - 0070	0262 - 0263	13 (a)	Withdrawn without prejudice
1274	30	04/06/2004	73	271	13 (a)	Withdrawn without prejudice
1275	49	04/06/2004	92	0354 - 0355	13 (a)	Withdrawn without prejudice
1276	1552	08/24/2004	1324	5531	13 (a) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1277	1553	08/24/2004	1324	5532	13 (a) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1278	1554	08/24/2004	1324	5533	13 (a) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1279	1556	08/24/2004	1325	5536	13 (a) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1280	1557	08/24/2004	1325	5537	13 (a) 20 (h)	Agreed to answer
1281	1558	08/24/2004	1325	5538	13 (a) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1282	1559	08/24/2004	1325	5539	13 (a) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1283	1561	08/24/2004	1326	5543	13 (a) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1284	1562	08/24/2004	1326	5544	13 (a) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1285	1563	08/24/2004	1326 - 1327	5545	13 (a) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1286	1564	08/24/2004	1327	5546	13 (a) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1287	1565	08/24/2004	1327	5547	13 (a) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1288	1566	08/24/2004	1327	5548	13 (a) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1289	1567	08/24/2004	1327	5549	13 (a) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1290	1568	08/24/2004	1328	5550	13 (a) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1291	1569	08/24/2004	1328	5551	13 (a) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1292	1594	08/24/2004	1356	5655	13 (a) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1292A	98	04/06/2004	0164 - 0165	0745 - 0747	13 (a) 20 (g)	Withdrawn without prejudice
1292B	99	04/06/2004	165	0748 - 0750	13 (a) 20 (g)	Withdrawn without prejudice
1292C	166	04/13/2004	0281 – 0282	1232 – 1233	13 (a) 20 (g)	Agreed to answer
1293	31	04/06/2004	0074 - 0076	0277 - 0280	13 (b)	Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
1294	38	04/06/2004	79	296	13 (b)	Withdrawn without prejudice
1295	39	04/06/2004	80	297	13 (b)	Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
1297	41	04/06/2004	80	299	13 (b)	Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
1298	42	04/06/2004	0080 - 0081	300	13 (b)	Withdrawn without prejudice
1299	43	04/06/2004	0081 - 0082	0304 - 0305	13 (b)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1300	44	04/06/2004	82	306	13 (b)	Agreed to answer
1301	47	04/06/2004	86	0331 - 0334	13 (b)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1302	70	04/06/2004	126	0516 - 0517	13 (b) 20 (f)	Withdrawn without prejudice
1303	79	04/06/2004	137	0583 - 0585	13 (b)	Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
1304	172	04/13/2004	289	1268	13 (b) 20 (h)	Withdrawn without prejudice
1305	1536	08/23/2004	1305	5474	13 (b) 20 (h)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1306	1542	08/24/2004	1312	5494	13 (b) 20 (h)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1307	1543	08/24/2004	1312	5495	13 (b)	Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
1308	1607	08/24/2004	1367	5693	13 (b) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1309	1608	08/24/2004	1367	5694	13 (b) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1310	1609	08/24/2004	1367	5695	13 (b) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1311	1610	08/24/2004	1367	5696	13 (b) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1312	1611	08/24/2004	1367 - 1368	5697	13 (b) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1313	1612	08/24/2004	1368	5698	13 (b) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1314	1613	08/24/2004	1369 - 1372	5699	13 (b) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1315	1614	08/24/2004	1372	5700	13 (b) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1316	1615	08/24/2004	1373	5701	13 (b) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1318	1617	08/24/2004	1373	5703	13 (b) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1322	1622	08/24/2004	1377 - 1378	5716 - 5717	13 (b) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1323	1623	08/24/2004	1379 - 1380	5724 - 5725	13 (b)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1324	1625	08/24/2004	1380 - 1381	5729	13 (b)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1326	1628	08/24/2004	1381	5732	13 (b) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1327	1629	08/24/2004	1383	5734	13 (b)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1329	1632	08/24/2004	1389 - 1391	5760	13 (b) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1330	1633	08/24/2004	1392	5763 - 5764	13 (b)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1334	1638	08/24/2004	1398	5788	13 (b) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1335	1639	08/24/2004	1398	5789 - 5790	13 (b) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1336	1640	08/24/2004	1399	5791	13 (b) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1337	1641	08/24/2004	1399 - 1402	5793	13 (b) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1338	1643	08/24/2004	1402 - 1403	5794	13 (b) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1339	1644	08/24/2004	1408	5808	13 (b) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1340	1645	08/24/2004	1409	5809	13 (b) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1344	1649	08/24/2004	1412	5815	13 (b) 20 (h)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1345	1650	08/24/2004	1412	5816	13 (b) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1346	1651	08/24/2004	1412	5817	13 (b) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1347	1652	08/24/2004	1412	5818	13 (b) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1349	1654	08/24/2004	1413	5820	13 (b) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1352	1657	08/24/2004	1413 - 1414	5824	13 (b) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1353	1658	08/24/2004	1414	5825	13 (b) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1354	1659	08/24/2004	1414	5826 - 5827	13 (b) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1355	1660	08/24/2004	1415	5828 - 5829	13 (b) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1357	1662	08/24/2004	1416	5833 - 5834	13 (b) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1358	1663	08/24/2004	1416 - 1417	5835	13 (b)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1361	1666	08/24/2004	1417	5838	13 (b)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1362	1667	08/24/2004	1418	5839	13 (b)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1363	1669	08/24/2004	1420 - 1421	5847 - 5848	13 (b)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1364	1670	08/24/2004	1421 - 1423	5849	13 (b)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1366	1672	08/25/2004	1433	5868	13 (b)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1367	1673	08/25/2004	1433 - 1434	5870 - 5871	13 (b)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1368	1674	08/25/2004	1435	5676 - 5877	13 (b)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1370	1676	08/25/2004	1437 - 1438	5882	13 (b)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1374	1680	08/25/2004	1443 - 1444	5893	13 (b)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1375	1681	08/25/2004	1444 - 1445	5896	13 (b)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1376	1682	08/25/2004	1445	5897 - 5898	13 (b)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1378	1684	08/25/2004	1446 - 1447	5902	13 (b)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1400	23	04/06/2004	0067 - 0068	256	13 (c)	Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
1402	28	04/06/2004	0070 - 0073	0268 - 0270	13 (c)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1404	62	04/06/2004	109	444	13 (c)	Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
1409	1524	08/23/2004	1298	5462	13 (c)	Withdrawn without prejudice
1413	1529	08/23/2004	1301	5467	13 (c) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1414	1530	08/23/2004	1301	5468	13 (c) 20 (h)	First part withdrawn without prejudice; Second part ordered answered
1415	1532	08/23/2004	1302	5470	13 (c) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1416	1533	08/23/2004	1304	5471	13 (c)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1418	1535	08/23/2004	1305	5473	13 (c) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1419	1538	08/24/2004	1306	5475	13 (c) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1420	1539	08/24/2004	1311	5489	13 (c) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1421	1540	08/24/2004	1311	5490	13 (c) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1422	1541	08/24/2004	1312	5491	13 (c) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1423	1544	08/24/2004	1315	5501	13 (c) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1424	1545	08/24/2004	1315	5502	13 (c) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1425	1546	08/24/2004	1315 - 1316	5503	13 (c) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1426	1547	08/24/2004	1316	5504	13 (c) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1427	1548	08/24/2004	1316	5505	13 (c) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1429	1647	08/24/2004	1411	5813	13 (b) 13 (c) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1431	1664	08/24/2004	1417	5836	13 (b) 13 (c)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1432	1665	08/24/2004	1417	5837	13 (b) 13 (c)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1434	1675	08/25/2004	1435 - 1436	5878	13 (b) 13 (c)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1436	1701	08/25/20004	1456	5923 - 5924	13 (b) 13 (c) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1437	1702	08/25/2004	1456	5925	13 (b) 13 (c) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1440	1743	08/25/2004	1474	5978	13 (c)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1441	1744	08/25/2004	1475	5979	13 (c)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1442	1745	08/25/2004	1475 - 1476	5980 - 5982	13 (c)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1443	1746	08/25/2004	1476	5984	13 (c)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1447	1750	08/25/2004	1479	5994 - 5995	13 (c)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1456	1772	08/25/2004	1489	6021	13 (b) 13 (c)	Withdrawn without prejudice
1457	1781	08/25/2004	1496	6042 - 6043	13 (c) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1460	1919	08/26/2004	1639	6290	13 (c) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1461	1920	08/26/2004	1639	6291	13 (c) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1467	119	04/06/2004	188	0841 - 0842	13 (d)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1468	121	04/06/2004	192	862	13 (d)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1469	1555	08/24/2004	1324	5534	13 (d) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1470	1560	08/24/2004	1325 - 1326	5540-5541	13 (d) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1471	1704	08/25/2004	1457	5927	13 (d) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1472	1705	08/25/2004	1457	5928	13 (d) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1473	1706	08/25/2004	1457	5929	13 (d) 20 (h)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1474	1707	08/25/2004	1458	5930 - 5931	13 (d) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1475	1708	08/25/2004	1458	5932	13 (d) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1476	1709	08/25/2004	1458	5933	13 (d) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1477	1710	08/25/2004	1459	5934	13 (d) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1479	1712	08/25/2004	1459	5937	13 (d) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1480	1713	08/25/2004	1460	5938	13 (d) 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1482	1774	08/25/2004	1491	6030	13 (e)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1483	1775	08/25/2004	1491	6031	13 (e)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1485	1777	08/25/2004	1493	6034	13 (e)	Agreed to be answered on November 21, 2005
1488	1587	08/24/2004	1350	5632	14 20 (h)	Withdrawn without prejudice
1494	1627	08/24/2004	1381	5731	16 (a)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1495	94	04/06/2004	159	718	16 (b)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1503	438	04/14/2004	0505 - 0506	2145 - 2146	17	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1504	439	04/14/2004	506	2147	17	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1506	2011	08/26/2004	1701	6437	17	Withdrawn without prejudice
1509	141	04/13/2004	255	1124 - 1125	17	Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection
1510	142	04/13/2004	255	1126	17 20 (e)	Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection
1511	147	04/13/2004	0258 - 0259	1136 - 1139	17	Agreed to be answered June 1, 2006 under reserve of objection
1512	1521	06/11/2004	1292	5457	17	Withdrawn without prejudice
1513	1999	08/26/2004	1691	6410	17 20 (h)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1516	1995	08/26/2004	1689	6406	17 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1517	2047	08/26/2004	1741 - 1742	6548	17 20 (h)	Agreed to be answered in Respondent's Position column in chart, served April 3, 2006
1552	1837	08/25/2004	1562	6150	18 (c) 20 (h)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1553	1865	08/25/2004	1584 - 1585	6192	18 (c)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1555	1872	08/26/2004	1597	6209	18 (c)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1570	1827	08/25/2004	1548	6128	18 (d)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1572	1829	08/25/2004	1549	6131	18 (d)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006
1577	1855	08/25/2004	1576 - 1577	6177	18 (d)	Withdrawn by moving parties on October 4, 2006
1588	1928	08/26/2004	1642	6299	18 (d)	Withdrawn by moving parties without prejudice on October 4, 2006

 

Court File No. T-753-99

This is Schedule “D” to the Order of November 24, 2006

 

No	Reqstno	Discdate	Pageno	Questno
15	250	04/13/2004	369	1622
16	251	04/13/2004	0369 - 0370	1623
27	586	04/14/2004	571	2427
50	712	04/15/2004	664	2848-2849
51	713	04/15/2004	665	2850
54	719	04/15/2004	0671-672	2884-2885
57	722	04/15/2004	681	2921-2922
58	723	04/15/2004	681	2923
155	1860	08/25/2004	1582	6186

 

Court File No. T-753-99

This is Schedule “E” to the Order of November 24, 2006

 

 

No	Reqstno	Discdate	Pageno	Questno	Category
	369	04/14/2004	0475 – 0476	2020 - 2023	*
	426	04/14/2004	0501 – 0502	2120 – 2122
	427	04/14/2004	502	2123 – 2125
34	443	04/14/2004	507	2152	1 (c)
35	444	04/14/2004	507	2153	1 (c)
47	544	04/14/2004	545	2309 - 2310	1 (c)
49	546	04/14/2004	546	2312	1 (c)
54	573	04/14/2004	0559 - 0560	2370	1 (c)
80	400	04/14/2004	491	2080 - 0281	2 (a)
85	457	04/14/2004	0513 - 0514	2182	2 (a) 20 (h)
86	458	04/14/2004	514	2183	2 (a)
89	783	04/15/2004	702	3029-3030	2 (a)
91	839	04/15/2004	0760-0761	3310-3312	2 (a) 20 (h)
96	1102	04/16/2004	1017	4452	2 (a) 20 (h)
114	139	04/13/2004	254	1122	2 (b)
115	158	04/13/2004	274	1204	2 (b)
117	379	04/14/2004	481	2039 – 2041	2 (b) 20 (k)
129	417	04/14/2004	498	2107	2 (b)
133	425	04/14/2004	501	2119	2 (b) 20 (b)
135	446	04/14/2004	508	2157	2 (b)
144	478	04/14/2004	522	2217	2 (b)
146	505	04/14/2004	532	2267 - 2268	2 (b)
147	506	04/14/2004	532	2269	2 (b)
148	507	04/14/2004	533	2270	2 (b)
149	508	04/14/2004	533	2271	2 (b)
156	1489	06/11/2004	1262	5368	2 (b)
157	1490	06/11/2004	1263	5369 - 5370	2 (b)
158	1491	06/11/2004	1263	5371	2 (b) 20 (b)
191	218	04/13/2004	324	1441	2 (d) 20 (k)
201	645	04/14/2004	616	2630	2 (d)
231	1086	04/16/2004	983	4304-4306	3 (a) 20 (b)
241	1200	06/11/2004	1089	4687	3 (a)
264	1364	06/11/2004	1195	5111	3 (a)
302	1182	06/11/2004	1083	4658	3 (b)
303	1183	06/11/2004	1083	4659	3 (b)
306	1186	06/11/2004	1084	4664 - 4665	3 (b)
310	1222	06/11/2004	1098	4716	3 (b)
456	1580	08/24/2004	1345	5615	4 20 (k)
459	1592	08/24/2004	1355	5652 - 5653	4 20 (k)
1536	1597	08/24/2004	1358	5665	18 (b) 20 (k)

 

 

APPENDIX IV

 

 

 

Date: 20060809

Court File No.: T-753-99

Ottawa, Ontario, August 9, 2006

PRESENT: Madam Prothonotary Roza Aronovitch

B E T W E E N:

MERCK & CO., INC. and MERCK FROSST CANADA & CO.

Plaintiffs

- and -

 

NU-PHARM INC., BERNARD SHERMAN
and RICHARD BENYAK

Defendants

ORDER

(Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Bernard Sherman to Answer
Certain Discovery Questions)

 

            UPON motion by the plaintiffs for:

1.                  an order compelling the defendant, Dr. Bernard Sherman ("Sherman"), to answer outstanding undertakings given on his examination for discovery held on April 27-30 and May 3-5, 2004;

2.                  an order compelling Sherman to answer questions refused on said examination for discovery;

3.                  an order compelling Sherman to re-attend on discovery to answer further questions, including questions arising out of the answers provided and documents produced in respect of paragraphs 1 and 2 above;

4.                  an order granting the plaintiffs their costs of this motion; and

5.                  such further and other relief as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court deem just;

AND UPON this Court directing that the parties address on a preliminary basis the two threshold issues (the "Preliminary Issues") of:

 (A)      Sherman’s general obligation to inform himself by making inquiries of certain companies controlled by him and of certain third party corporations; and

(B)       the relevance of the contents of APO-ENALAPRIL;

AND UPON reviewing the Moving Parties' Motion Record and the Responding Motion Record of Sherman, and upon hearing the submissions of counsel on March 22, 2006, concerning the definition of the Preliminary Issues, and on March 23 and 24, 2006, concerning the Preliminary Issues;

AND UPON  this Court having previously found that Sherman controls the Apotex group of companies, and having ordered Sherman to produce certain relevant categories of documents within the power, possession and control of those companies pursuant to Rule 225(a), by Order dated June 24, 2002, including documents related to the composition, formulation and active medicinal ingredient in Apo-Enalapril tablets;

AND UPON hearing the Plaintiffs’ Compliance Motion on March 22-23, 2006, and being advised that Sherman has made inquiries within the Apotex group of companies and has produced documents within the power, possession and control of the Apotex group of companies in response to discovery questions;

ENDORSEMENT

 

To begin, this endorsement deals with Dr. Sherman’s (“Sherman’s) general discovery obligations pursuant to Rules 240, 241 and 244 and is separate from Sherman’s obligations pursuant to Rule 225(a) and any Order made thereunder.

 

Essentially, I agree with the submissions made on behalf of Sherman that as a personal defendant being sued in his personal capacity, as a general proposition, he is not required pursuant to Rules 240 and 241 to make inquiries of Apotex, Apotex related companies and other third parties to this proceeding.  Sherman is not a corporate discovery representative for these companies.  His obligation is to provide his own information or belief, and answer questions on that basis on discovery, (including, of course, information that Sherman has that relates to the third parties that are not party to this action (James River Corp. of Virginia v. Hallmark Cards, Inc. (1997), 72 C.P.R. (3d) 157 (F.C.T.D.)).

 

Rule 240 is the starting point, requiring a party to answer questions based on its own knowledge, information and belief.  Rule 241 expands or qualifies that obligation.  To the extent that Rule 241 contemplates discovery of an individual other than the representative of a corporate party, it nevertheless restricts the obligation on the individual being discovered to make inquiries of a present or former officer, servant, agent or employee “of the party” - in this instance, Sherman in his personal capacity.

 

As to whether any of these corporations may be said to be agents of Sherman, formal agency is a relationship that must be proven.  Merck has not adduced evidence on which to base a finding, at this stage, that Apotex or any of its related companies are Sherman’s agents.

 

I turn to Merck’s argument that Sherman is an “alter ego” of Apotex and companies related to Apotex, and that the “corporate veil” should therefore be lifted and their separate legal status disregarded.

 

I find no basis for disregarding Sherman’s or third parties’ distinct legal identities. I am not persuaded that the jurisprudence relied on by Merck relating to corporate “alter egos” and the lifting of the corporate veil has application in the circumstances.

 

The plaintiffs cite the following from Monarch Marking Systems, Inc. v. Esselte Meto Limited, [1984] 1 F.C. 641 (T.D.) “[i]n today’s global environment, Canadian companies may expect to be required to request information from their foreign affiliates”, that “international businesses ought not to be permitted […] to avoid full compliance with the law of Canada in respect of the business they do here”, and that “the corporate veil ought not be permitted to inhibit the administration of justice” (para. 73).

Monarch, as with other cases relied on by the plaintiffs, involves the examination for discovery of a corporate party’s representative - not the situation here.

Indeed, the “corporate veil” doctrine is an uneasy fit in the circumstances.  Piercing the corporate veil ordinarily means looking behind the corporation to the individuals who controls it - not as in this case looking “behind” an individual to a corporation(s) he controls.  More importantly, the policy consideration in Monarch for piercing the corporate veil has no application in this case.  The plaintiffs are not prevented from obtaining information from the third party corporations by reason of the corporate organization of the third parties but rather, due to Merck’s choice not to sue them and Merck’s further choice not to seek relevant information directly from them.

The plaintiffs also rely on  Crestbrook Forest Industries Ltd. v. Canada, [1993] 3 F.C. 251 (C.A.) (“Crestbrook”) in support of the proposition that Sherman, because “he exercises effective control over the entire chain”, cannot hide behind the corporate veil of the Apotex Group of Companies or Nu-Pharm in an attempt to avoid compliance with his discovery obligations.

Control, I agree, may be sufficient and determinative in terms of the obligation to produce documents (see Rule 225(a) and the explicit requirement for control as a factor).  The corporate veil however is not lightly or easily lifted and more than control is required to prove that a corporation is the alter ego of the owner.

To comment specifically on Crestbrook, this was an appeal from the Associate Senior Prothonotary who had directed an officer of the respondent to inform himself and to provide answers to certain questions put by the appellant during an examination for discovery.  Again, distinguishable from the case at bar.

Chief Justice Isaac (Justice Stone and Deputy Judge Craig concurring) framed the issue as follows at p. 264:

[…] the question to be answered in this appeal is whether a corporate party to an action, who is engaged in an international business arrangement with non-resident controlling shareholders, can be required to obtain from those shareholders who are not parties to the action, answers to questions posed during examinations for discovery which are relevant to the issues in dispute. […]

[emphasis added]

Notably, Chief Justice Isaac observed that “[s]ince the action was commenced prior to 1990, this proceeding was governed by the discovery rules as they stood before the amendments already referred to” i.e., “Rule 465” [p. 264].

At the outset of his analysis, Chief Justice Isaac stated at p. 265:

[…] there are some limits on the ambit of the examination, perhaps the most obvious of which is that the Court will not permit the discovery process to be used as a "fishing expedition" (see, e.g., Sperry Corporation v. John Deere Ltd. et al. (1984), 82 C.P.R. (2d) 1 (F.C.T.D.)). For the purposes of this case, however, the relevant limit is that imposed by Rule 465 itself. To repeat, paragraph 15 required that an individual being questioned was to "answer any question as to any fact within the knowledge or means of knowledge" of the party for whom he had been put forward. In my view, this creates an obvious presumption that a party can only be expected to answer questions for which it has an ability to find an answer.

[emphasis added]

Moreover, Chief Justice Isaac observed at p. 269: “This notion -- that as far as Crestbrook was concerned, Honshu and Mitsubishi were one, is supported by the documentary evidence.”

It was against that factual background that Chief Justice Issac held at p. 272 that “Crestbrook was for all intents and purposes the alter ego of Honshu Mitsubishi” and that “the administration of justice requires that the operating minds behind Crestbrook, namely Honshu and Mitsubishi, be obliged to respond to the questions posed by the Crown”.

The following points are worth noting. There is no “documentary evidence” on this motion from which I can conclude that Sherman and Apotex, or related corporations controlled by Sherman “are one” in the sense of the jurisprudence.  From a policy perspective, as I have said, it is not Sherman’s use of his “various corporate machinations” that are preventing Merck “from shining the light of discovery” on these activities.  Merck is not precluded from having discovery of third parties who have relevant information, if it so wishes.

Finally, Merck, in my view, has placed the proverbial cart before the horse.  It cannot work backwards from having made allegations of alter ego, sham corporations, etc. to insisting that Sherman’s obligations on discovery be set by reference to those allegations as though proven.

In sum, in the absence of the words “means of knowledge”, Rule 240, as presently worded, reflects the general rule identified by Justice Walsh in Leesona Corp. v. Snia Viscosa Canada Ltd. (1975), 26 C.P.R. (2d) 136 (F.C.T.D.).

The subsequent case of Risi Stone Ltd. et al. v. Groupe Permacon Inc. (1994), 56 C.P.R. (3d) 381 (F.C.T.D.), which considered former Rule 458 (in substance identical to current Rule 240), confirmed that general rule as Justice Nadon stated at p. 387:

In view of Rule 458, a witness who is subject to examination must only answer questions that are within his or her knowledge and that are relevant to a matter in question in the action. […]

[emphasis added]

Notwithstanding the able arguments of counsel for Merck, I am not persuaded that Sherman’s obligation is broader than as stated above. Thus, for example, having regard to the documents which Sherman has been ordered to produce and has an obligation to produce given his effective control of some of the corporate entities, he need only answer proper questions based on his own information, knowledge and belief in respect of the documents.

As to Rule 244, it is not as Merck suggests unlimited or unconstrained in the obligation it imposes.  Rather, it is to be read and understood in the context of Rules 240 and 241.

The Contents of Apo-Enalapril

The contents of Apo-Enalapril and the API in Apo-Enalapril are relevant.  While Sherman, on discovery, has stated that the API in Apo-Enalapril is “enalapril maleate” however, he equivocates as to the rest.  Questions regarding the contents of Apo-Enalapril not directed exclusively to the API, are relevant and need be answered.

 

THIS COURT ORDERS that:

1.         The defendant Sherman does not have an obligation to make further inquiries in answer to questions asked concerning those corporations controlled by him including (but not limited to) Apotex Inc., Apotex Pharmaceutical Holdings Inc., Apotex Holdings Inc.,  Brantford Chemicals Inc., Apotex Research Inc., the “Apotex Group of Companies,” and their officers, directors and employees thereof, or concerning third party corporations including Signa S.A. de C.V. and Trillium Health Care Manufacturing Inc.

2.         The contents of APO-ENALAPRIL are relevant to matters in issue in this proceeding.

3.                  Within five (5) days of the issuance of this Order, the Merck plaintiffs shall deliver charts to the defendant Sherman setting out those questions which they believe to have been fully disposed of by virtue of the orders made in each of paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Order.  A separate chart shall be delivered in respect of each such paragraph of this Order.  For greater certainty, “fully disposed of” means that no other objections have been made by Sherman’s counsel on the record in this motion, other than on the basis of the Preliminary Issues.

4.                  Sherman shall then have five (5) days to provide the Merck plaintiffs with his position with respect to the charts referred to in paragraph 4 of this Order.

5.                  The parties shall have a further five (5) days within which to jointly submit to the Court lists of questions that are agreed to have been fully disposed of by virtue of this Order.

6.                  With respect to questions which have been fully disposed of as a result of the questions ordered to be answered pursuant to paragraph 2 above, the answers shall be provided to the plaintiffs within 75 days of the date of this Order.

7.                  The Court will hear further submissions at the return of the motion on any questions which the parties are unable to agree have been fully disposed of by virtue of this Order.

8.                  The costs of this motion will be determined as a whole upon determination of all outstanding questions and issues herein.

“R. Aronovitch”

 

APPENDIX “V”

NuPharm Notice of Motion dated October 10, 2006 appealing:	(1)	Making Inquiries Order (“MIO”) of Prothonotary Aronovitch dated August 9, 2006 (36 pages)
	(2)	Refusals Order (“RO”) of Prothonotary Aronovitch dated August 9, 2006 (18 pages)
Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion dated October 12, 2006 appealing:	(3)	MIO
	(4)	RO
Benyak Notice of Motion dated October 12, 2006 appealing:	(5)	MIO
	(6)	RO
Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion dated December 4, 2006 appealing:	(7)	Order of Prothonotary Aronovitch dated November 24, 2000 (81 pages) (“November Order”)
NuPharm Notice of Motion dated December 4, 2006 appealing:	(8)	November Order
Benyak Notice of Motion dated December 4, 2006 appealing:	(9)	November Order
Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion dated October 13, 2006 appealing:	(10)	a third Order of Prothonotary Aronovitch dated August 9, 2006, dealing with the defendant Sherman (7 pages)