Furious Seasons

February 13, 2007

The Zyprexa Chronicles: Judge Rules For Lilly

This morning US District Court Judge Jack Weinstein ruled in favor of Eli Lilly's arguments for keeping the leaked Zyprexa documents under seal. His ruling affects those named in the recent injunction, namely MindFreedom, AHRP, various websites and a few individuals. The ruling does not apply to the press however. More later, once I've been able to read the 80-page ruling--churned out within 24 hours after Lilly filed its brief yesterday. That's lightning fast by court standards. TortsProf has a post up on this already, which includes some choice language the judge leveled at some of the central figures in this case:

"Berenson’s, Egilman’s, and Gottstein’s brazen flouting of this court’s protective order raises serious questions about their responsibility. The court, based on the evidence before it, is not satisfied that they can be counted on to return all copies of the documents they may have in their possession or control. Egilman and Gottstein are therefore being permanently enjoined as noted in Part IV.H.5, supra. Berenson is not being enjoined since no injunction against him has been sought by Lilly."

Oh my.

Posted by Philip Dawdy at February 13, 2007 09:55 AM

del.icio.us Digg it reddit

Comments

Say, any chance you can explain to us what being "permanently enjoined" means? Sounds bad. This strikes me as pretty outrageous but what do I know? Yucko. The power guys win again sort of. What is that judge thinking of?

Posted by: Sara at February 13, 2007 10:31 AM

it means gottstein and egilman can never do a thing with those docs ever again, unless they appeal and win.

Posted by: Dawdy at February 13, 2007 11:06 AM

BS"D

Not only Egilman and Gottstein, but also David Oaks (for whom there is no conclusive evidence that he actually posessed any copies of these documents), Judi Chamberlin (who, from what I have read on the internet, passively sat on the docs she received from Gottstein and did nothing at all to disseminate them), and Vera Sharav (who gave the documents over to her attorney in escrow for the duration of the proceedings with the agreement of the court), and about three or four other non-parties. The original TRO against all of the parties was extended for ten days. On the other side, Judge Weinstein realized that the cat was out of the bag and no internet sites, including MindFreedom.org and AHRP's site and blog, could be restrained.

Judge Weinstein seems to have entirely ignored the arguments of the well-argued brief filed by Consumers Union, Mental Health America, and numerous psychiatrsts as to the overarching public need for disclosure. Looks like Big Pharma can buy off judges in this country. Is the judge flat-out biased against strong criticism of the drug-based psychiatric system? Looks like it.

Posted by: Stephen Mendelsohn at February 13, 2007 11:50 AM

While the websites were cleared on this one, it was a hollow victory since the First Amendment took a pounding here. Weinstein only spared the websites since he couldn't enforce an injunction against them, not because they are considered news agencies.

Furthermore, most of the EFF's arguments were rejected. The judge accepted Lilly's controlling precedents and basically made Lilly's Trade Secret argument for them (they have never forcefully asserted Trade Secret here).

Quite a confusing outcome. The Ruling also leaves open the road for Lilly to appeal injoining the websites in the 2nd Circuit.

Posted by: JD at February 13, 2007 12:28 PM

As this is a well known legal site that seems to follow all of these types of situations well, might it be a good idea that pointed [but polite] comments are left here?

http://pharmalot.com/2007/02/zyprexa_judge_times_reporter_i.php

It might help get the [REASONABLE] points across to the lawyers, and so Lilly and their lawyers, well?

Posted by: peagee at February 13, 2007 07:02 PM