Opinion
Page 1290a
165 Cal.App.4th 1290a __ Cal.Rptr.3d__ JAMES CLAYWORTH, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. PFIZER, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents. A116798 California Court of Appeal, First District, Second Division August 19, 2008Alameda County Superior Court, No. RG04172428, Hon. Ronald M. Sabraw, Harry R. Sheppard
THE COURT
The opinion filed herein on July 25, 2008 (165 Cal.App.4th 209; __ Cal.Rptr.3d ___), is modified as follows, and petition for rehearing is DENIED:
(1) On page 2, fn. 3, line 3 [165 Cal.App.4th 215, advance report, fn. 3 lines 2-3], the words “Johnson & Johnson” are deleted so that line 3 should read:
Janssen Pharmaceutical, Inc.; Ortho McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc.;
(2) On page 10 [165 Cal.App.4th 222, advance report, 3d par., line 1], the first line of the fourth paragraph is modified so that it reads:
In an seven-to-one opinion written by Justice White, the Supreme Court reversed the
(3) On page 22 [165 Cal.App.4th 232, advance report, after the 1st full par.], following the second full paragraph, a new paragraph is added as follows:
The proof problems present in Hanover Shoe are not apparent in the record here. To the contrary, while plaintiffs resisted discovery on various grounds, Judge Sabraw specifically found that plaintiffs had not shown it was unduly burdensome or oppressive for them to produce data regarding purchases and sales of drugs, since the information was maintained electronically and could apparently be extracted and compiled with relative ease. Indeed, as early as 1978, commentators were noting the significance and utility of the computer in antitrust litigation. (See, for example, Federal Jud. Center, Manual for Complex Litigation (1978) § 2.717, p. 80.) And the technological developments in the ensuing 30 years can hardly be exaggerated.
(4) On page 24 line 15 [165 Cal.App.4th 233, advance report, last par., line 4], the third line of the third full paragraph, the words “again a unanimous” are deleted, and the word “another” substituted, so that the line should read:
Page 1290b
Corp. (1989) 490 U.S. 93, 102-103 [104 L.Ed.2d 86, 109 S.Ct. 1661] (ARC America), another opinion by
(5) On page 25, line 8 [165 Cal.App.4th 234, advance report, 2d full par., line 4], the third line of the first full paragraph, the word “Shoe” is deleted, and the word “Brick” substituted, so that the line should read:
Darnell-Taenzer Co. (1918) 245 U.S. 531, 533-534 [62 L.Ed. 451, 38 S.Ct. 186].) In enacting the Illinois Brick
(6) On page 35 [165 Cal.App.4th 242, advance report, last par., lines 2-3], the second sentence in the second full paragraph, at lines 13-14, is deleted.
(7) On pages 35 through 37, the heading “5. Even Assuming Hanover Shoe Were the Law in California, the Pass-On Defense is Available in the Setting Here" [165 Cal.App.4th 243-244, advance report], and the following discussion are deleted.
(8) On page 37 [165 Cal.App.4th 244, advance report], the heading “6. The UCL Claim Has No Merit” is renumbered to read “5. The UCL Claim Has No Merit”.
These modifications do not effect a change in the judgment.
The petition for rehearing is denied.