PHILADELPHIA – After 19 years of litigation leading to a settlement, a federal court recently dismissed a qui tam complaint against the Sanofi-Aventis pharmaceutical company for alleged violations of the False Claims Act.
On Nov. 5, U.S. District Court Judge Anita B. Brody ordered the case against Aventis’ dismissed, given that relator Yoash Gohil and the company had come to terms on a settlement.
The settlement terms were not disclosed. In False Claims Act cases, whistleblowers, or relators, bring suit on behalf of the federal government, which has the option to join the litigation. In this case, the feds did not.
After the complaint brought by Gohil on behalf of the United States against Sanofi-Aventis began in 2002, the case finally passed the motion to dismiss stage and reached the discovery phase 13 years later, in 2015. The lawsuit alleged a fraudulent marketing scheme concerning Sanofi's chemotherapy agent Taxotere that caused numerous healthcare providers to submit false claims to federally funded health insurance programs.
Discovery lasted four years and four months, leading the Court to extend such deadlines at least seven times.
In January of last year, Aventis sent a flurry of subpoenas demanding depositions of nine current and former government employees in the next two weeks. When it was told that timing was “unreasonable,” a follow-up motion to compel was filed just before discovery was to conclude.
Aventis lost both its motion to compel and subsequent motion for reconsideration.
“Aventis waited until the day before discovery was set to close – Feb. 14, 2020 – to file the motion to compel. Aventis sought information from the government related to the ‘materiality’ element of a False Claims Act claim. It offered no legitimate explanation for its failure to make a more timely request. Aventis had ample time to do so,” Brody said.
“The Court denied Aventis’s motion to compel because it was facially unreasonable. Aventis waited until the day before discovery closed to serve its motion. It had ample time to seek earlier discovery. It gave no reason for its delay, other than a misrepresentation that it did not know that materiality was important until the Jan. 22, 2020 oral argument. Accordingly, the Court exercised its discretion to deny Aventis’s motion.”
UPDATE
On Nov. 5, both parties jointly filed a stipulation notice of voluntary dismissal, which brought the case to a close.
“On or about May 17, 2002, Relator Yoash Gohil filed a qui tam complaint on behalf of the United States, alleging violations of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. Sections 3729-3733. The complaint was amended on or about July 23, 2002, on or about Feb. 9, 2007 and on or about May 13, 2015. The United States declined to intervene in Relator’s first amended complaint and, to date, has not intervened in the civil action,” the notice read.
“Relator now seeks the voluntary dismissal of any and all claims stemming from allegations in the civil action, including but not limited to Relator’s claim for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Relator and defendants Sanofi U.S. Services, Inc., Aventis, Inc. and Aventisub, LLC hereby stipulate that the civil action and all claims brought therein should be dismissed with prejudice as to Relator pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) and without prejudice to the United States. Except as otherwise agreed in the written agreement resolving Relator’s claim for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under 31 U.S.C. Section 3730(d), each party shall bear its own costs.”
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:02-cv-02964
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com