Legal Brief on Behalf of AHRP Re: Lilly-Zyprexa Documents

On Monday, January 8, 2007,  Alan C. Milstein of the law firm, Sherman, Silverstein, Kohl, Rose & Podolsky, filed a brief in U.S. District Court, Eatern District of New York, on behalf of the Alliance for Human Research Protection (“AHRP”), Vera Sharav, and Dr. David Cohen, in support of their motion for an Order vacating CMO-3 in part (by determining that the Eli Lilly-Zyprexa documents which form the subject of a temporary injunction entered on December 29, 2006, are not confidential), or, in the alternative, dissolving the Injunction in part.

"The issue before this Court is the public’s right to know information critical to any informed decision to take a particular drug. Pharmaceutical companies have a record of concealing information about the adverse effects of their products and giving the public only that which will further the companies’ sales, even at the expense of public health. Litigation against pharmaceutical companies is often the only means of curtailing the marketing and sale of drugs to those for whom the risks outweigh any benefits. Too often, however, drug companies and plaintiffs’ lawyers agree to suppress from public view, by way of protective orders, the critical information revealed in the litigation process. Such protective orders, like the protective order that was agreed to by the plaintiffs and defendant in this case, do not serve the public good and, thus, do not comport to the purposes for which such orders were contemplated under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."

"The Documents were generated by Lilly itself and, if their disclosure is damaging, it is because the Documents reveal the Company’s admissions about the risks of Zyprexa. On the other hand, the harm to the public in not having material information about the dangers of a particular drug is manifest."

"The fact of the Documents, and a summary of their contents, was made known to the public through the Times’ coverage. The public continues to have access to archives of the Times’ coverage, roughly 10,000 web pages about the Times’ coverage, the YouTube video, the Wikipedia entry, and countless other web and print resources about Lilly’s malfeasance."

The documents, as reported by the New York Times, show evidence, at best, that Eli Lilly concealed material information from or, at worst, intentionally misled patients and prescribing physicians. Such documents are not confidential by any standard.

See full legal brief at:

Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav

Links to NYT reports on this website and at:
Dec. 17, 2006: :

also at: 

Dec. 18:                                                    

also at:

Dec. 19:                                                             

also at: