MO v. FDA: JUDGE’S RESPONSE TO INFORMATIONAL REQUEST 10/30/15

November 3, 2015 6:02 pm by Gene Borio

The PDF is Here

EXCERPT:

On October 21, 2015, the court received a “Notice of Informational Request” (“Notice”) filed by Plaintiffs. ECF No. 14. The Notice requested that the court inquire whether any lawyer at his former law firm, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, “was involved in advising, counseling or representing” The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids (“CTFK”) “or any other anti-tobacco organization in connection with the Guidance” issued by the Food and Drug Administration on September 8, 2015, which is the subject of this litigation. Id. at 3. The court has made the requested inquiry and discloses the following.

CTFK is a current and past client of Zuckerman Spaeder. While the court was a partner of the firm, Zuckerman Spaeder provided legal counsel to CTFK relating to the comments that it submitted to the FDA in June 2013 about the draft Guidance. That legal advice pertained to, among other things, the “Label Changes” Question & Answer section of the draft Guidance. Zuckerman Spaeder did not provide any legal counsel to CTFK relating to the comments that it submitted to the FDA in November 2011 about the draft Guidance. The court did not participate in the firm’s representation of CTFK in connection with the draft Guidance; nor was the court aware of those legal services when they were provided. Zuckerman Spaeder did not provide legal counsel to any of the organizations identified on page two of the Notice or any other anti-tobacco organization in connection with the draft Guidance.

The court adds to this disclosure that his spouse presently is a partner at Zuckerman Spaeder and was a partner in 2013, when the firm provided legal advice to CTFK about the draft Guidance. She did not participate in the firm’s representation of CTFK.

END EXCERPT

FULL TEXT:

Case 1:15-cv-01590-APM Document 24 Filed 10/30/15 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Philip Morris USA Inc., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

United States Food and Drug Administration,

et al.,

Defendants.

Civil No. 1:15-cv-01590 (APM)

_________________________________________

RESPONSE TO INFORMATIONAL REQUEST

On October 21, 2015, the court received a “Notice of Informational Request” (“Notice”)
filed by Plaintiffs. ECF No. 14. The Notice requested that the court inquire whether any lawyer
at his former law firm, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, “was involved in advising, counseling or
representing” The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids (“CTFK”) “or any other anti-tobacco
organization in connection with the Guidance” issued by the Food and Drug Administration on
September 8, 2015, which is the subject of this litigation. Id.
at 3. The court has made the requested inquiry and discloses the following.

CTFK is a current and past client of Zuckerman Spaeder. While the court was a partner of
the firm, Zuckerman Spaeder provided legal counsel to CTFK relating to the comments that it
submitted to the FDA in June 2013 about the draft Guidance. That legal advice pertained to,
among other things, the “Label Changes” Question & Answer section of the draft Guidance.
Zuckerman Spaeder did not provide any legal counsel to CTFK relating to the comments that it
submitted to the FDA in November 2011 about the draft Guidance. The court did not participate
in the firm’s representation of CTFK in connection with the draft Guidance; nor was the court

Case 1:15-cv-01590-APM Document 24 Filed 10/30/15 Page 2 of 2

aware of those legal services when they were provided. Zuckerman Spaeder did not provide legal
counsel to any of the organizations identified on page two of the Notice or any other anti-tobacco
organization in connection with the draft Guidance.

The court adds to this disclosure that his spouse presently is a partner at Zuckerman
Spaeder and was a partner in 2013, when the firm provided legal advice to CTFK about the draft
Guidance. She did not participate in the firm’s representation of CTFK.

Date: October 30, 2015

Amit P. Mehta
United States District Judge
2

Leave a Reply

The primary purpose of this site is to provide information in a timely manner. Postings should be informative. The usual rules apply: No libel, no profanity, no personal abuse, keep it on topic, and short.

If you are scheduled as a court witness, CHECK with your lawyer before posting anything here!