879 F. Supp. 2d 454
E.D. Pa.2012Background
- Direct Purchasers and a generic FP manufacturer sue GSK over delaying generic FP entry and related conduct.
- The privilege dispute concerns whether Swiftwater communications with GSK counsel are privileged.
- A Special Master found Swiftwater documents not privileged; GSK sought de novo review.
- The court ordered in camera review to determine privilege status on a document-by-document basis.
- The court adopts a broad functional-equivalent approach, finding Swiftwater acted as an integrated member of GSK’s team and thus may be treated as the equivalent of an employee for privilege purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Swiftwater is the functional equivalent of a GSK employee for privilege. | Direct Purchasers contend Swiftwater was administrative only and not the functional equivalent. | GSK argues Swiftwater was integrated and essential to legal strategies, thus the functional equivalent. | Swiftwater is the functional equivalent of a GSK employee; privilege may attach to Swiftwater communications on a case-by-case basis. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Graf, 610 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2010) (functional-equivalent inquiry governs privilege for consultants)
- In re Bieter Co., 16 F.3d 929 (8th Cir. 1994) ( adopts functional-equivalent approach for independent consultants)
- Federal Trade Comm’n v. GlaxoSmithKline, 294 F.3d 141 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (confidential communications with consultants entitled to privilege when integral to team litigation)
- Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981) (functional privilege purpose; case-by-case, not control-group)