Abbott 2

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
2
3
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

4
ex rel. KEVIN N. COLQUITT,
Plaintiff,
6
7
8
ABBOTT LABORATORIES f/k/a

Guidant Corporation, and
ABBOTT VASCULAR
SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 3:06-CV-1769-M
10
11
12
TRANSCRIPT OF MOTIONS HEARING

BEFORE THE HONORABLE BARBARA M. G. LYNN
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2014
DALLAS, TEXAS
13
APPEARANCES:
14
FOR THE RELATOR:
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. CHRISTOPHER S. HAMILTON

STANDLY & HAMILTON, LLP
325 N. ST. PAUL
SUITE 3300
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201
(214) 234-7970
chamilton@standlyhamilton.com
MS. MEAGAN MARTIN
325 N. ST. PAUL
SUITE 3300
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201
(214) 234-7945
mmartin@standlyhamilton.com
APPEARANCES CONTD:
MR. ANDREW M. BEATO
STEIN MITCHELL MUSE
CIPOLLONE & BEATO, LLP
1100 CONNECTICUT AVE. NW
SUITE 1100
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036
(202) 737-7777
abeato@steinmitchell.com
2
3
4
5
6
MS. ANDREA FITZGERALD

325 N. ST. PAUL
SUITE 3300
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201
(214) 234-7945
afitzgerald@standlyhamilton.com
7
8
9
10
MS. MERYL GRENADIER

STEIN MITCHELL MUSE
SUITE 1100
(202) 737-7777
mgrenadier@steinmitchell.com
11
12
13
14
MR. DAVID U. FIERST

STEIN MITCHELL MUSE
SUITE 1100
(202) 737-7777
dfierst@steinmitchell.com
15
16
17
18
19
FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ANDREW A. KASSOF

KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP
300 N. LASALLE
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60654
(312) 862-2000
andrew.kassof@kirkland.com
1
2
3
4
APPEARANCES CONTD:
MR. GEORGE W. BRAMBLETT, JR.
HAYNES & BOONE, LLP
2323 VICTORY AVENUE
SUITE 700
DALLAS, TEXAS 75219
(214) 651-5000
george.bramblett@haynesboone.com
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
MS. ELIZABETH S. HESS

300 N. LASALLE
(312) 862-3253
elizabeth.hess@kirkland.com
MR. DANIEL SIEGFRIED
300 N. LASALLE
(312) 862-3813
daniel.siegfried@kirkland.com
12
13
14
15
PROCEEDINGS REPORTED BY MECHANICAL STENOGRAPHY, TRANSCRIPT

PRODUCED BY COMPUTER-AIDED TRANSCRIPTION.
16
17
______________________________________________________________
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
D. KEITH JOHNSON, RDR, CRR

FEDERAL OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
FOR THE HON. BARBARA M. G. LYNN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
1100 COMMERCE STREET, ROOM 1572
DALLAS, TEXAS 75242
(214) 753-2325
P R O C E E D I N G S
1
2
(September 17, 2014)
(Court opening.)
THE COURT:
All right.
I have scheduled for oral
argument the original source issue that is the subject of the
defendant's motion for summary judgment in Colquitt versus
Abbott, Case Number 6-1769.
8
9
I will advise all of you that I have a jury out.

They had told us previously that they would be in session
10
until 5:00, so it is possible we will hear from them between
11
now and 5:00 or possible that they will decide to stay longer
12
to finish.
13
So if I get a knock on the door, you-all will have
14
to move away -- back.
15
today, but you may have to stand aside for a little while.
16
All right.
I'll come back to you.
I will hear you
For the plaintiff, I have Mr. Hamilton,
17
Ms. Martin, Mr. Beato, Ms. Fitzgerald, Ms. Grenadier and
18
Mr. Fierst.
And Mr. Hamilton will argue; is that correct?
19
MR. HAMILTON:
20
THE COURT:
All right.
Mr. Colquitt.
21
All right.
Thank you.
I don't believe I've ever
22
23
24
25
Yes, Your Honor.
met you before.

All right.
And for the defense, I have Mr. Kassof,
Mr. Bramblett, Ms. Hess and Mr. Siegfried, correct?

MR. KASSOF:
That's correct, Your Honor.
1
2
THE COURT:
All right.
And Mr. Kassof will argue;
is that correct?
MR. KASSOF:
THE COURT:
Yes.
All right.
Let me -- what I would like
to do is sort of recapitulate this as I preliminarily see it,
and then I will give you-all some benefit of what I am
thinking.
them up for you, or as you wish.
And then you can address the issues as I have teed
But I want to sort of give a little mini-summary of
10
what the issues are and where I see the problems and various
11
positions.
12
13
It's my understanding that Mr. Colquitt worked

for -- is it Guidant?
14
MR. KASSOF:
15
THE COURT:
Is that the correct pronunciation?

Yes, ma'am.
Worked for Guidant for a period from
16
February of '04 to June of '06.
17
during the period of April of '06 to June of '06.
18
evidence before me is that Guidant and Abbott operated --
19
continued to operate essentially as two different companies
20
for the period from April '06 to June of '06, June being the
21
period when Mr. Colquitt left Guidant.
22
on the Abbott side during the period of his employment.
23
Abbott took over from Guidant

The
So he was not active
To the extent people disagree with these facts, you
24
can tell me you do and give me evidence to tell me why I'm
25
wrong, because I believe the facts I'm stating are the facts.
1
2
The claim that remains in the case is off-label

promotion of biliary stents for use in the vascular system.
The motion is directed to three things:
Can Mr. Colquitt, as a matter of law, based on the
undisputed facts, be an original source for the allegations of
off-label promotion before February of 2004; can he be the
original source for those claims after June of 2006; and can
he be the original source for any claims related to Abbott.
The focus of the briefing is on direct and
10
independent knowledge.
11
voluntary disclosure, but in my view, the focus is on direct
12
and independent knowledge.
13
There is briefing on the issue of
The Court is troubled by the notion that Mr.
14
Colquitt, based on the evidence before me, can claim to be an
15
original source for anything that happened before he joined
16
the company.
17
Colquitt can be an original source for what happened after he
18
left the company, to the extent the claim is the same claim
19
that -- for which he can be an original source during the
20
period from February of '04 to April of '06.
21
I am less troubled by the notion that Mr.
To illustrate this more specifically, if an
22
employee identifies during his employment -- not a prediction,
23
such as what was in the Rockwell case, but as a matter of
24
fact, that there is some defect in manufacturing, and
25
discloses that and then leaves the company, and the
manufacturing defect continues after the defendant leaves the
employ of his employer, I'm not finding case law that says
that he's cut off from being the original source of that
information merely because he is no longer an employee.
And the general allegation of off-label promotion
of biliary stents for use in the vascular system continues.
The position of the defense in this case is, well, things
change, there were different programs, different sales force,
different sales approaches.
But if the promotion of biliary
10
stents for use in the vascular system is the claim, and that's
11
what I've held, and that continued, if it occurred at all, if
12
it continued after he left the company, I'm not following the
13
argument that he cannot be the original source for that
14
material.
15
And I understand this point of derivative
16
knowledge.
17
claim that is being asserted based on the same -- same kind of
18
conduct.
19
But to me, the issue is different if it's the same
Judge Godbey, in his case, to distinguish it, there
20
are two different contracts which he holds the relator is
21
involved with one and not involved with the other in any
22
significant way, so -- I think it was a woman -- she cannot be
23
the original source as to one of the contracts but can be the
24
original source of the other, even though she has left the
25
employ of her employer.
And I think that there is room for that argument in
this case as to off-label promotion of biliary stents for use
in the vascular system after June of 2006.
I am also troubled about Abbott, because I don't
see that the evidence here establishes that Mr. Colquitt knows
much about Abbott at all during the period -- really knows
much, if anything, about Abbott during this two-month period.
And there I believe that the evidence is that the information
he has about Abbott, very limited, very sparse, is derived
10
from others.
11
So if I have to rule immediately without hearing
12
any argument, I am inclined to rule in favor of the defense on
13
the preemployment and Abbott and against the defense on the
14
post-employment.
15
16
Would y'all like to go home and have a cocktail or

do you want to -- I'm just kidding.
17
Okay.
So you haven't accepted my partial ruling
18
for you.
You want to convince me to defeat it all, and you
19
want to convince me to grant it all.
20
MR. KASSOF:
I would like to, yes.
21
THE COURT:
I kind of thought you might.
22
All right.
But that's where I'm leaning.
23
So if you'll try to grab the part I'm not inclined
24
to give you, and you'll try to make sure I don't give them
25
what I'm inclined to.
Okay.
MR. KASSOF:
THE COURT:
Movant.
Thank you, Your Honor.
Counsel, I'm going to take a matter of
personal privilege just a second and go off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
THE COURT:
MR. KASSOF:
I will start right where you directed me to, which
Back on the record now.

Andrew Kassof for the defendants.
is on the period post-employment, as to whether Mr. Colquitt
10
can claim original source status over any claims against
11
Abbott at that time, after he left the company in June of
12
2006.
13
And I think the starting point, as Your Honor
14
recognized, is in the motion to dismiss opinion, is what is
15
his direct knowledge of the allegations in the complaint.
16
That's what Rockwell held, and that's what Your Honor
17
recognized.
18
So then you look at it and you say, okay, take Your
19
Honor's hypothetical.
If some defect happened and Mr.
20
Colquitt knew about it -- assume he has direct knowledge of
21
his allegations of a defect during the period of employment
22
and then he leaves, and he doesn't have any contact at all
23
with Abbott, he has no personal involvement with Abbott, he
24
has no direct experience with Abbott, he knows nothing about
25
the ongoings within Abbott itself at all, and that's what he
10
testified to under oath, then can he still nonetheless,
because the allegation is that the scheme continued, the
defect continued post employment, can he maintain his status
as an original source.
And, Your Honor, we submit that there are cases
that have determined this issue, similar issues, including the
Fitzgerald case, which I'll talk about in a second.
how we read it, every single court that has considered that
issue has come out the other way and held that no, he cannot.
10
And from
In fact, what he needs to show -- there is no
11
bright-line employment test.
12
to show -- he still needs direct, independent knowledge.
13
still needs direct knowledge himself, firsthand knowledge as
14
the Fifth Circuit defines it, of the alleged defect as it's
15
continuing.
In Rockwell --
17
THE COURT:
19
But what he needs
Well, I want you to give me a case that
says that, because I can't find one.

If -- if the allegation is -- and this is not that.
20
I recognize the allegation is of a different type.
21
using a defect case, because I think it's the easiest.
22
He
Otherwise, it is a separate claim.
16
18
That's clear.
But I'm
So you're saying to me -- let's talk about an
23
ignition switch in a vehicle made by some car manufacturer.
24
And I'm speaking hypothetically, because I don't know anything
25
about the particulars any more than anybody else does, and I
11
don't have any cases involving it, but I don't want to get too
specific in case I do.
But if an employee knows about a defect in the
ignition switch of a major manufacture's vehicles and leaves,
and the defect just continues -- keeps on keeping on, and
there is a lawsuit, why should that relator be cut off from
recovery for damages related to the same defect that that
employee had direct and independent knowledge of and
voluntarily disclosed to the Government?
10
Assuming those
things happened, why should there have to be something else?
11
Why does the employee have to go in under cover of
12
darkness and get a memo or if -- if the employee is able to
13
prove that the defect continued, why does that employee have
14
to develop new post-employment knowledge, if the wrongdoing is
15
continuous?
16
And what cases do you have that say that?

I can take every case I'm aware of -- Fitzgerald is
17
a good example -- and say that it's not the same allegation.
18
It's a different kind of allegation.
19
MR. KASSOF:
Well, I'll go through Fitzgerald and
20
the other cases, too.
But I think the starting point ought to
21
be the statute.
22
public disclosures.
23
jurisdiction of the court -- it's not just a damages issue,
24
it's a subject matter jurisdiction issue -- was two different
25
scenarios:
Because this is against the backdrop of

And the way Congress circumscribed the
One if the Government intervenes in a case and one
12
if the Government does not intervene in the case.
Where the Government intervenes in the case and
there has been public disclosure, then the relator can recover
his percentage of the recovery for the entire period that the
Government can prove its claims.
That's clear.
But where you have a situation against the backdrop
of public disclosures, where the Government then has not
intervened in the case, Congress struck a balance, and they
limited the relator's -- the subject matter jurisdiction over
10
the relator's claim to that over which he has direct
11
knowledge.
12
Rockwell then came down and said, okay, can we look
13
at the claim in reasonably -- in reasonable discrete parts.
14
And in Rockwell, as the relator described the claim in
15
Rockwell, was in the relator's Supreme Court brief.
16
The gravamen of Mr. Stone's original amended
17
complaints is that Rockwell knowingly hid ES&H violations in
18
order to continue receiving award fee bonuses from the
19
Government.
20
in Rockwell.
21
An ongoing continuous scheme is what was alleged
The Supreme Court broke the claims into discrete
22
parts, both by the spray-irrigation claims that he had
23
firsthand, direct knowledge during his employment, as well as
24
the pondcrete claims that occurred after his employment.
25
the Court looked at it as reasonably discrete claims, which is
And
13
consistent with the Fifth Circuit's instruction in Reagan,
which says you need to look at the factual suttleties of the
case.
4
5
So then you say, okay, well, how have courts looked

at that issue and defined it in ongoing case law.
6
7
In the Fitzgerald case that Judge Godbey had across

the hall, the allegations there in the complaint --
8
9
THE COURT:
He wasn't across the hall when he had
that.
10
MR. KASSOF:
11
THE COURT:
12
MR. KASSOF:
Fair enough.
He was close.
He was down a couple of floors.

The allegations there was that
13
Ms. Fitzgerald worked for the company for six months in 1999,
14
yet alleged a continuous fraudulent scheme that lasted from at
15
least 1993 to the present.
16
up.
17
each of these cases, too, because that's what Rockwell says is
18
the focus of the direct knowledge.
19
And the defendants teed the motion
And I think it's important to look at the allegations in
The defendant then teed this issue up in its
20
original source motion.
And in the very first paragraph, the
21
same way we did, the defendant said although Fitzgerald left
22
Novation in February of 1999, after working there about six
23
months, she now claims to have direct personal knowledge of an
24
alleged kickback scheme running from at least 1993 to present
25
among Novation's, VHA and others.
14
And what Judge Godbey did is he looked at it, and
he said, okay -- he described it as a scheme where Novation
"used its leverage to extract kickbacks from vendors in
exchange for awarding large supply contracts."
And what the Court held there was, is for the
relator, Ms. Fitzgerald, she did have direct knowledge over
that catheter contract that she personally was involved in,
she had direct knowledge about, she had direct experience in.
But what she didn't have any direct knowledge about
10
was anything that happened before the six months that she got
11
there, anything that happened afterwards.
12
that she doesn't have direct knowledge regarding the other
13
contracts, the other BD contracts.
14
And he even said
So she had direct knowledge over one BD catheter
15
contract, but not over the other ones.
16
knowledge over the other contracts, too.
17
have any firsthand, direct knowledge after -- either before
18
she got there or after the time she left.
19
She didn't have any

Because she didn't
The Vuyyuru court, in the Fourth Circuit, there the
20
alleged scheme was from 1997 through 2005, and the relator
21
left the employer in March of 2003.
22
ongoing, continuous fraudulent billing scheme that continued
23
all the way through.
24
said it continued for another two years through '05.
25
Fourth Circuit rejected the post-employment claims by saying,
And they allege an
The relator, after he left in March '03,

And the
15
"Relator Vuyyuru cannot be a direct and independent source
with respect to any allegations of fraud involving SRMC or its
facilities after March 2003" -- and here's the key -- "because
by that time, Relator Vuyyuru had withdrawn practicing
medicine at SRMC."
That's the same situation we have here, Your Honor.
Mr. Colquitt withdrew altogether from this industry.
He went
on and he continued with law school, and then he became an
associate in the law firm prosecuting the case.
He is not in
10
a position to have direct knowledge as to what's going on,
11
whether that effect stayed the same in Your Honor's example or
12
of any activities at Abbott.
13
which Branch Consultants and Vuyyuru says is not enough, his
14
own suspicion, his own prediction as to what was happening,
15
which Rockwall says is not enough.
16
focus is on his direct, firsthand knowledge, as the Fifth
17
Circuit says.
18
THE COURT:
It's all his own speculation,
All right.
What he needs -- the only
Well, your position then is
19
that no matter what the allegation, once an employee leaves,
20
unless something occurs, going undercover with a wire, for
21
example, or observing something himself if he works for
22
another employer in the industry, unless that happens,
23
whatever the nature of the allegations, defect, case, whatever
24
it might be, once you're gone, you're gone, and you can't be
25
an original source.
16
MR. KASSOF:
Unless in the absence of direct
personal observation, firsthand, direct knowledge, he sees
something.
experiencing --
He goes to work in a hospital, he's
THE COURT:
That's what I said.
So your position
is it isn't quite what your opponents have said in their
response, which is a bright-line test, once you're gone, you
can no longer be the original source.
additional direct and independent information unrelated to
10
11
But you have to develop
your past employment.

MR. KASSOF:
Yes, ma'am.
That's exactly right.
12
And those two cases aren't the only one.
13
another really good example.
14
program, two relators.
15
for one second.
16
relator who is covering other periods of time.
17
18
19
The Haskins case is
There, there's a paralegal
In this situation -- and let me pause
In this situation, there could be another
THE COURT:
This is the case that they said --
pointed out that there was a rehearing?

MR. KASSOF:
There was a rehearing.
Two relators.
And here's
20
what's important.
Both participated in the
21
paralegal program.
22
that continued after the paralegal program, after their
23
attendance in the program.
24
said for one relator, she has no direct knowledge post
25
participation in the program.
Both alleged an ongoing continuous scheme
And the district in New Jersey
She can't know what is going
17
on.
She's limited in time to going to a jury at that time to
that period of time of her attendance, her direct knowledge,
her firsthand experience during the program.
The other relator was allowed to go forward only
after the Court said she made a sufficient showing to go to a
jury as to the period of time showing her direct knowledge,
her continued observation.
program, she still had direct knowledge, so she was allowed to
go forward.
10
Even though she was outside the
Under the relator's rule, if it continued, they
11
both would be allowed to go forward.
12
absolute distinction between the two relators, because one, in
13
the Court's judgment at least at that stage, had an ability to
14
say, "I still have direct knowledge.
15
having experience, observation, seeing the fraud with my own
16
eyes," as the courts have said, "of the fraud."
17
distinction.
18
But the Court drew an
I still am personally
The Smith case is another good one.
So that's a
There the
19
Court -- the relator there alleged a scheme from 1995 to 2004,
20
stopped working at the company in 1999.
21
long-running billing scheme that continued for the five years
22
after he claimed he left.
23
allegations of the scheme alone aren't enough.
24
25
But it was a
And the Court said, well, the
The Court required the relator to make a separate

post-employment showing of direct knowledge for his
18
post-employment allegations, even though the conduct -- the
quote in the opinion was, "began during his employment and
continued after his departure."
What he learned during this employment alone was
not enough to take -- for the Court to have jurisdiction over
the post-employment claims.
relator having direct knowledge, the Court said on the record
before it that the relator hadn't made that showing.
In the absence of that specific
The Read case -- I think the Read case is actually
10
really similar here.
11
got was that, well, the Read case had to do with a separate
12
contract after the relator left.
13
The responsive -- the response that we
Again my starting point is, what are the
14
allegations in the complaint.
15
complaint was a 10-year fraud, a continuous fraud based on
16
written contracts, continuous written contracts that were no
17
different as they kept going, 10 years.
18
in 1988 -- the employment ends in '88, and the Court rejects
19
the post-employment claims, because what the Court held was,
20
Read was not a member of the staff when the 1991 contract was
21
negotiated and entered into.
22
The allegations in the
The relator stopped
If it's an ongoing, continuous scheme and the exact
23
same types of contracts, the kickback contracts, the alleged
24
scheme contracts that are at issue in the case continue on
25
three years later, the alleged defects continue, Read comes
19
out the other way, Haskins comes out the other way, Vuyyuru
comes out the other way, and I submit Fitzgerald comes out the
other way.
So I think that on one side of the ledger, where
this issue has ever come up, where courts have focused on the
allegations and decided whether it continues post-employment
or post-participation or post-observation, they've all come
out the same door and said you cannot just allege -- allege
that the scheme continued when you admit that you have no
10
personal observation about it, you didn't experience it, you
11
didn't have direct knowledge, there's no firsthand knowledge
12
tying you to those allegations.
13
That's what Congress prescribed in a situation
14
where there's a public disclosure, the Government hasn't
15
intervened, and the relator is suing just solely based on his
16
direct knowledge.
17
THE COURT:
18
MR. KASSOF:
19
Okay.
And I guess I'll wait to reply on the
other two periods of time.
20
21
THE COURT:
22
MR. HAMILTON:
23
Your Honor, if I may approach, I have a PowerPoint
24
25
Thank you.
Yes.
Mr. Hamilton.
and some exemplar evidence.

THE COURT:
All right.
Do you have an extra one
20
for my law clerk?
MR. HAMILTON:
Yes.
Thank you.
Your Honor, Chris Hamilton for the relator.
I would like to -- I'm going to go out of my
intended order, and I would like to begin by talking about the
evidence here related to Mr. Colquitt's knowledge of Abbott,
both prior to the merger and as well as his knowledge of
Abbott after the merger while he was with the company.
The first slide I would like to point to is slide
10
20, which is an email from Elin Williams, a premerger Abbott
11
employee, to Mr. Colquitt dated April 28, 2006.
12
around the time of the merger.
13
This is
The testimony from Ms. Williams is that the
14
document attached to this email, which I'll go to next, was
15
prepared by her superiors prior to the merger and reflected
16
premerger activity by Abbott.
17
merger activity, as Mr. Colquitt was identified by superiors
18
and Ms. Williams and her Guidant counterpart, that they were
19
supposed to work together.
20
This was shared as part of the
As we turn to slide 21, what we see at the top, it
21
says "Endo," referring to endovascular, and the first item,
22
which I've not highlighted, but it says, "From where is your
23
current endo business derived?"
24
25
THE COURT:
Okay.
Just a minute.
This is so
small, I'm flattered that you think I can read it.
So give
21
1
2
3
me -- it's really -MR. HAMILTON:
I apologize.
The more important one
I've called out.
THE COURT:
Pardon me?
MR. HAMILTON:
The more important one I've called
out to the right, which is the -- first one I pointed out
merely for the context, because the second one says, "Please
list and describe your conversion targets."
is significant is because the defendants have suggested that
10
Colquitt's knowledge of Abbott merely suggests off-label use
11
as opposed to off-label promotion.
12
The reason this
Here we have the current accounts, which is the one
13
that's hard to see.
14
describe your list of conversion targets."
15
at the list of conversion targets in this business plan, you
16
see 17 physicians -- 16 vascular surgeons, and one
17
interventional cardiologist -- none of whom performed --
18
19
THE COURT:
But the one I've highlighted is, "Please

And when you look
Just a second.
(Pause in proceedings.)
20
THE COURT:
All right.
21
MR. HAMILTON:
Go ahead.
So what we have here are all
22
vascular doctors who don't do biliary procedures with
23
particular Abbott products, the Xc and Xp, which stand for the
24
Xceed and Xpert biliary stents, next to those conversion
25
targets who are physicians that would not use those products
22
on label and they're not current Abbott customers.
THE COURT:
They're not what?
MR. HAMILTON:
Current Abbott customers, meaning
they are targets for promotion as opposed to spontaneous,
off-label use.
And so this is a business plan reflecting premerger
activity that was shared, according to the testimony of
Ms. Williams, at the direction of her supervisor so that they
could work together moving forward.
10
So this demonstrates Mr. Colquitt's knowledge, in
11
the form of documentary evidence related to Abbott's
12
practices, prior to the merger.
13
14
THE COURT:
Okay.
I want to say that back to you,
because I'm not sure I see the point you're making.
15
So if I look at your chart to the right of the
16
page, WHC, et cetera, specialty means that's a vascular
17
surgeon --
18
19
20
MR. HAMILTON:
Yes, Your Honor.
(Pause in proceedings.)
THE COURT:
All right.
So these are vascular
21
surgeons, with the exception of IC, interventional
22
cardiologists, and all of those products are Guidant biliary
23
products, except for those that say "all"; is that true?
24
MR. HAMILTON:
25
Abbott biliary products.
No, Your Honor.
Those are actually
23
THE COURT:
Okay.
MR. HAMILTON:
And that's why I believe this
demonstrates conclusively Abbott's business practices in a
document that Mr. Colquitt received.
5
6
THE COURT:
Okay.
But what were the -- what were
these physicians using before?
MR. HAMILTON:
Well, they actually referenced -- in
the part that I -- is not blown up in the call-out, but it
says "competitor product" and it references Cordis and BSX,
10
for Boston Scientific.
11
12
THE COURT:
But these are -- I mean, your
point -- I want to make sure I'm not missing your point.
13
14
Okay.
Your point is that these are biliary products -biliary stents used by vascular surgeons.
15
MR. HAMILTON:
No.
Actually the point, Your Honor,
16
is slightly different.
17
business plan, created by Ms. Williams' supervisors, she is
18
supposed to target for conversion to biliary products produced
19
by Abbott.
20
So these --
21
THE COURT:
These are biliary products that in the
Well, there's a huge logical leap in
22
there that I want to understand and challenge.
23
me what the evidence is.
24
25
And you tell
What I'm asking you is, there's -- there's a

difference between vascular surgeons are using biliary stents
24
because they want biliary stents for their vascular
procedures, whether these are being promoted by Guidant or
Abbott or not, and once Abbott and Guidant get involved,
they're going to see to it that Abbott is supplying the
product equivalent that Cordis has been suppling to these
physicians before.
And so if it's a biliary stent, then what Abbott is
going to apply is a biliary stent.
That doesn't mean that
they are promoting a biliary stent to those surgeons, because
10
that's what they were using before, and they're merely
11
substituting their own product for the equivalent supplied by
12
Cordis or Scientific American.
13
MR. HAMILTON:
Well, in the context of -- I think
14
there's two components there.
15
Cordis did both have approved vascular stents.
16
of the document, there's not an indication as to what products
17
these physicians were using; simply that they were using a
18
different company's products.
19
One, Boston Scientific and

So on the face
We do have an indication that they weren't
20
currently using Abbott's products.
21
documents that we've identified in the FDA standards,
22
off-label promotion is encouraging a physician to use a
23
product -- a product in a manner inconsistent with the label.
24
25
And according to the
Promotion is simply encouraging a customer to use

or purchase a product.
And when you are encouraging a
25
customer to use or purchase a product, attempting to convert
them to your product for a use that is inconsistent with the
label, that's off-label promotion.
And I think the key piece here -- and I can turn to
the next slide, which I think will provide some context.
next slide is an email from Brian Ewald, the supervisor of Ms.
Williams, Mr. Colquitt's counterpart after the merger, and he
says in the last sentence, "Please use this when working with
your Guidant counterpart at making a unified approach at
10
11
beating the competition."
The
Mr. Colquitt was the counterpart.
And what we have in here, several quotes from this
12
May 2006 business plan -- now we're talking about post-merger,
13
while Mr. Colquitt is at Abbott, moving forward.
14
quotes such as, "Colquitt helped Dr. Chatrathi with referring
15
physician marketing campaign," one of the exact same things
16
that Colquitt identified as a Guidant practice, "Has committed
17
to helping me with both endo and carotids, has requested
18
consignment."
19
And we have
Moving up, Colquitt, Drs. Turco -- lists some
20
doctors -- advocates for renals.
"This will play to my favor
21
when we relaunch Herc Elite."
That's a biliary stent.
22
renal is an artery procedure.
And then it says, "Work with
23
Elan to place Xceed stocking at Walter Reed."
24
is one of the hospitals that was identified in the prior
25
document as a conversion target.
The
And Walter Reed
26
And so what we see here are some of the same
allegations that Colquitt has established in the case and
which the evidence supports.
And a critical point here, I believe, is that there
is no requirement to take any singular piece of evidence and
completely establish a case.
All of these items are pieces of evidence, when
placed in the conduct -- in the context of Mr. Colquitt's
knowledge, give rise to a reasonable inference that there is
10
off-label promotional activity occurring, conversion targets
11
of vascular surgeons for biliary stents.
12
So I believe that there is certainly evidence in
13
Mr. Colquitt's possession with regard to these same practices
14
that he's provided that demonstrate continuation of these
15
practices by Abbott.
16
Now, I think there's also a very important piece of
17
direct and independent knowledge that Mr. Colquitt has about
18
what happened after he left the company and directly reflects
19
on what was occurring at Abbott.
20
piece of knowledge that I think is very, very important.
21
the reason that, even under the Court's analysis and
22
discussion with counsel as to the law, I think even under
23
counsel's proposed interpretation of the law, we should still
24
prevail on this issue.
25
Here's why.
It's an Abbott-specific
There's a little bit of background
It's
27
required.
After the case was filed in September of 2006, Mr.
Colquitt met with the DOJ and the FDA for a period of months
following that time.
closed-door meeting where they called, among others, Abbott
down and admonished the industry, including Abbott, for
off-label promotion and attached a page from Abbott's website
saying, "This demonstrates off-label promotion," and
specifically -- if I can turn to my third slide -- what
In March of 2007, the FDA held a
10
happened is the FDA indicated that they were prepared to
11
communicate concerns with, among others, hospital risk
12
managers.
13
And following this meeting, Abbott committed to, on
14
its own, send a letter to the hospitals and the customers
15
reaffirming that the safety and effectiveness of these devices
16
for use in the vascular system had not been established and
17
that serious adverse events could occur.
18
19
20
Here's where Mr. Colquitt's post-employment

knowledge comes in to play.
After this meeting with the FDA, Mr. Colquitt has a
21
call within a individual named Geri Hanson, who was then a
22
current Abbott sales rep in this area.
23
Mr. Colquitt, "I was on a call with all of the territory
24
managers across the country, and they were discussing this
25
biliary letter that we were supposed to send out after the FDA
Ms. Hanson tells
28
meeting.
And there was a discussion that it would be sent in
three folks:
and the risk manager."
To the materials manager, the cath lab manager,
And as Mr. Colquitt testified, Ms. Hanson said, "I
can deal with the first two, but the risk manager is going to
be a problem; let's not send it to the risk manager."
This was Mr. Colquitt's testimony.
gave a declaration saying, "I dispute that.
happen.
10
Ms. Hanson then

That didn't
You made that up."

But here's the problem.
After Mr. Colquitt's
11
deposition, we obtained documents from Abbott that verified
12
those very events that were never publicly disclosed and which
13
Mr. Colquitt could not have known about but for his direct and
14
independent knowledge obtained through this conversation.
15
And I can flip through this evidence.
16
The next slide, number 4, originally shows the
17
letter going to three accounts:
18
and materials director.
19
The cath lab, risk manager
And then on slide 5, there's an email, "On the call
20
with the TMs" -- the territory managers -- "this morning,
21
there was concern that we are sending our biliary letter to
22
risk managers.
23
list for field actions.
24
the director of cath lab and materials director?"
25
bottom, "We may be able to remove the stack for risk manager."
This group is typically part of a distribution

Are we okay with sending a letter to
And at the
29
And Mr. Colquitt -- these emails have not been
produced in this case.
testified to prior to the production of these documents that
he had from this conversation.
that ultimately they did remove the risk managers from this
distribution.
This was knowledge Mr. Colquitt
And we see in the next slide
And the reason that this is important is that in
light of the nature of what was going on in terms of promotion
here, which critically involved training of doctors, thousands
10
of physicians being trained how to implant these biliary
11
stents in the vascular system off label, referring physician
12
campaigns, practice building campaigns, and training hospitals
13
and their staff on how to code the biliary stenting procedures
14
so that when Medicare sees them, it lists it as placement of
15
an intravascular stent, as if it were a vascular stenting
16
procedure involving a vascular stent without using the
17
required coding modifiers to give Medicare all of the
18
information.
19
20
21
All of those were training schemes that Colquitt

pled in this case, disclosed to the Government.
And so the FDA knows, in order to put this Genie
22
back in the bottle and stop this process, we need you to take
23
these affirmative actions.
24
evidence is very important in that it's stronger than anything
25
in Haskins, as opposed to the reconsideration opinion in
And so the significance of this
30
Haskins where one of the relators established that she had
some knowledge of activities continuing, what this
demonstrates is an intent to -- not just of continued
activity, but an intent to continue the activity and to avoid
taking the action promised to the FDA to make this stop.
Because there's another important piece here, which is that
what the defendants are seeking to impose is a claims cut-off
date, essentially.
And it's -- the standard is knowledge.
And with
10
the actions that have been established through the evidence,
11
those actions -- training physicians, training hospitals --
12
would continue to cause false claims to be submitted.
13
that's why the FDA wanted to take this aggressive action.
14
And
And so I believe that this evidence, even under any
15
interpretation that the defendants put forth of the case law,
16
constitutes direct and independent knowledge by Mr. Colquitt.
17
The defendants have contended, well, this is a conversation;
18
this doesn't meet the direct and independent knowledge
19
requirement.
20
the question is was this obtained by Mr. Colquitt's efforts as
21
opposed to the efforts of others.
22
Reagan.
23
Because I think the critical analysis there is
That's the analysis under
And this is not a circumstance where Ms. Hanson is
24
a whistleblower; she's a participant.
And if Mr. Colquitt
25
were an FBI investigator, certainly we would all say that
31
the -- hearing those admissions were the fruits of
investigator's investigation.
And so I believe this critical piece here deals
with both Abbott and all of the post-employment information
reflecting an intent to continue the scheme.
There's -- I won't go through that evidence, but
there is substantial evidence, including slide number 2, of a
direct continuation of the scheme in 2008.
Abbott, "I thought the balloon products did actually have
An engineer from
10
peripheral approval, and it was just the stent products that
11
we sort of skirt the system with a biliary cloak."
12
That post-employment Abbott conversation among
13
engineers could have been lifted from Mr. Colquitt's
14
complaint.
15
16
So I will now briefly turn to the issue of

preemployment.
17
18
It's the exact same scheme.
I think this is -- the preemployment issue is -- is

addressed under the Bahrani case.
19
The Tenth Circuit, focusing on the first opinion,
20
not what happened at trial where the jury determined -- the
21
first opinion was at the summary judgment phase, which is
22
where we find ourselves now.
23
The defendant made the exact same argument made
24
here.
Mr. Bahrani began working at the company in 1996, and
25
he pled claims back to 1991.
32
The Fourth Circuit -- or the Tenth Circuit analyzed
that argument and rejected it and said at the summary judgment
phase, there was sufficient evidence that he had direct and
independent knowledge of the conduct that those claims could
proceed.
as well.
So I think the case law there supports our position
We've cited -- before getting to Mr. Colquitt's
knowledge, we've cited audits from Guidant in 2002, before his
employment, where they were finding off-label marketing,
10
discussing the exact same training programs with regard to
11
physicians and that those were evidence of off-label
12
promotion.
13
scheme beginning to end.
14
So we have no question that there's a single
Now, Mr. Colquitt's knowledge.
We have identified
15
his initial training PowerPoints presented by VP of marketing,
16
Jim Neupert, who not coincidentally was for the VP of
17
marketing for Abbott for years after the merger, same
18
gentleman.
19
20
THE COURT:
slides there's evidence of promotion of off label.
21
22
Well, show me where in those PowerPoint
MR. HAMILTON:
I can pull that up.
Honor.
23
May I approach, Your Honor?
24
THE COURT:
25
Yes, Your
in the record?
Yes.
This is evidence that's already
33
1
2
MR. HAMILTON:
Your Honor, there is a
black-and-white version of it in the record.
THE COURT:
Okay.
MR. HAMILTON:
And I believe there are a few pages
from the end that might have been missing from that version,
because that was the one that he actually presented with his
disclosure statement.
simply easier to read.
9
10
THE COURT:
appendix?
11
12
But this is the same document, just
Okay.
What's the reference in the
What are the numbers?

MR. HAMILTON:
Okay.
Ms. Martin is going to find
that while I'm talking.
13
THE COURT:
Okay.
14
MR. HAMILTON:
All right.
So what we have in the training
15
PowerPoint, on slide number 5, "Positioned for leadership in
16
multiple endovascular therapies."
17
This is one of Colquitt's key allegations and
18
specifically what Abbott received a warning letter for in
19
2007, using endovascular in connection with biliary stents.
20
Endovascular means in a blood vessel, to a
21
physician.
22
connection with biliary stents.
23
employees from the get-go that these are for leadership in
24
endovascular therapies.
25
The FDA said you can't do that, many times, in

So they're training their
There are -- you can see the -- on slide 7 the
34
practice building, reimbursement seminars, market building --
all of these items -- referral dinners, all of Mr. Colquitt's
key allegations going through this time.
You can also see the ES sales growth tracking back
to the beginning of the scheme in 1999 on slide number 9,
keeping in mind this entire time Guidant has no approved
vascular stents at all, despite making themselves positioned
for leadership for endovascular therapies with these biliary
stents.
10
So I think this is -- there's certainly more than
11
enough evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact
12
with regard to the issues of off-label promotion.
13
specifically within this document, which has a copyright of
14
2003, prior to Mr. Colquitt's employment, and data relating to
15
the sales going back a period of years.
16
slide that -- I was not immediately seeing it -- but I recall
17
a slide referring to the particular anatomies as well.
And
And there's also a
18
I'll move on from that.
19
So I think the training materials here reflect not
20
something new but something -- a document going back to 2003,
21
sales data going even further back in time, and specific use
22
of terms like "endovascular" in connection with biliary stents
23
and the training status and reference to all of programs at
24
that Mr. Colquitt identified that were used to promote these
25
products.
35
And there are, in addition, conversations that Mr.
Colquitt had with a gentleman named Darren Loftiss, going back
to 2002, where Mr. Loftiss discussed that he was selling
biliary stents in the Guidant Endovascular Solutions Division.
And again, I would submit that all of this evidence
is -- there's no requirement that the post-employment or
preemployment evidence be -- that every item be taken in
isolation; it's looked at within the lens of Mr. Colquitt's
total direct and independent knowledge, the sum of his
10
knowledge.
And the evidence is that Mr. Colquitt does have
11
direct and independent knowledge that this was going on
12
beforehand, dating back to 1999, and that it continued for
13
some period of time well after they were told to stop by the
14
FDA.
15
THE COURT:
All right.
16
MR. HAMILTON:
17
MR. KASSOF:

Your Honor, just going in the order
18
that counsel went in, too, so I can try and do this quickly
19
for you.
20
On Abbott, first off, all of the documents that he
21
just showed start at -- talk about targets -- targets, doctor
22
targets, starting in April of 2004.
23
April of 2004 that Mr. Colquitt never saw, never knew about,
24
had no reason to know about before April of 2004.
25
These are documents in
So that -- without question, he has -- as he
36
testified under oath, he's got no direct knowledge whatsoever
about Abbott before April of 2004.
2004.
So they can go in April
Comments about targets of promotion and conversion
of customers.
which talks about any kind of off-label promotion whatsoever.
And, in fact, knowing that -- and Your Honor's questions were
indicative of that.
There is nothing on the face of those documents
What you need to see -- what the case law talks
10
about is you need to see the fraud with your own eyes.
11
he has to then argue from is, well, you see, Your Honor,
12
Cordis and Boston Scientific, they had vascular-indicated
13
stents.
14
doesn't say anything about that.
15
So we're talking about converting targets.
What
It
Cordis and Boston Scientific had biliary stents
16
that were the ones being that were sold and used by doctors,
17
because doctors preferred biliary stents over
18
vascular-indicated stents.
19
that -- there's no discussion at all whatsoever about
20
off-label promotion to any specific doctor.
21
and says he wants a biliary stent product, because that doctor
22
thinks it's in the best interest of his patient to treat that
23
patient, it doesn't require any off-label promotion at all.
24
25
THE COURT:
And what's important is none of
If a doctor calls
Well, the argument, as I just
understood it, was Guidant doesn't have any vascular stents at
37
the operative time period.
It only has biliary stents.
So if it says let's convert these to Abbott -- I
guess Abbott at that operative period, if I understood the
argument, doesn't have vascular stents, and that it's
off-label promotion merely to say if these vascular surgeons
have biliary stents by anybody and we try to substitute ours
for those, that's off-label promotion.
8
9
MR. KASSOF:
There's zero case law, regulatory or
other support for that.
10
Once products are cleared or approved by the FDA,
11
they're available to sell.
12
product that they want, because the FDA can't regulate the
13
practice of medicine, whether it's a vascular-indicated stent,
14
whether it's a biliary-indicated stent, whether it's an
15
iliac-indicated stent, which is an artery in the peripheral
16
vasculature that they want to use in the renal, which is still
17
off-label use.
18
THE COURT:
Doctors can choose to use any
Well, I understand that.
But if a
19
vascular surgeon is using a Cordis biliary stent and Abbott --
20
I'll say Abbott -- says let's substitute -- let's go out there
21
and get that surgeon, we know he likes biliary, so let's
22
substitute our biliary stent for Cordis's biliary stent.
23
MR. KASSOF:
24
THE COURT:
25
promotion.
Uh-huh.
Their position is that is off-label
If we knock on the door and we -- Abbott says,
38
"Here's our catalog.
2
3
Anything of interest?"
And the vascular surgeon says, "I like that biliary

stent," that's okay.
But if they say, "Hey, we know you're a vascular
surgeon, but we've got biliary; would you like one," that
that's off-label promotion.
MR. KASSOF:
The last piece of it, if you say to
the doctor, "We've got balloons that are indicated for use in
the vasculature; we've got wires that are indicated for use
10
there, we've got catheters that are indicated for use there;
11
and we have a biliary stent that's only indicated for the bile
12
duct," and the vascular surgeon says, "What are the dimensions
13
of your stent?
14
sales rep says not another word about it, that's not off-label
15
promotion, and the FDA wouldn't say that's off-label
16
promotion.
17
I like that stent; I want that stent," and the
There's no telling that doctor, "Hey, Doc., if you
18
use this biliary stent in the iliac, it's going to perform
19
much better than the iliac-indicated stent you're currently
20
using."
21
Sales reps can't do that.
22
instructions were to the sales reps.
23
That's off-label promotion.
You can't do that.
And that's consistent with what the
But here's the important point anyway, Your Honor,
24
truly, is the issue -- the limited issue on this motion is Mr.
25
Colquitt's direct knowledge.
He admitted he knew absolutely
39
nothing about Abbott before the merger.
So then you're
focused on the period of April to June of 2006.
Half of the
documents that we just saw, he wasn't on, okay?
The other
ones, he talks about a conversation with Geri Hanson.
Your Honor, every single court that has considered
whether information received from another person is firsthand
direct knowledge, has rejected it, every single court.
8
9
The Fitzgerald court had a situation where the

allegation was that Ms. Fitzgerald learned from other Novation
10
employees, the defendant, and others in the health care
11
industry.
12
you obtained it either secondhand, from those individuals, not
13
firsthand, direct knowledge.
14
Judge Godbey said that's secondhand information --
THE COURT:
Well, but the allegation here is
15
essentially wrongdoing on her part.
16
allegations, she's participating in a scheme of deception, and
17
he learns about it.
18
knows something wrong and is, in effect, passing her potential
19
whistleblower status to him.
20
of the alleged scheme of wrongdoing.
21
She's -- based on the
That's the allegation.
Can't do that.
Not that she
But she's part
And it can't possibly be the law that a potential
22
relator is cut off because he talks to somebody who is part of
23
the alleged wrongdoing.
24
25
MR. KASSOF:
That can't be.

All of the cases say that is
absolutely the law, Your Honor.
The Grynberg case in the
40
Tenth Circuit, the relator Grynberg spoke with Jim Nielsen --
Nielsen is president of the company -- and she spoke with
Nielsen's chief operating officer.
summary judgment and said, those conversations that you had
with the president and chief operating officer, those are
secondhand communications.
The district court granted
Goes up to the Tenth Circuit.
Relator Grynberg
argues to the Court, "Well, that can't be secondhand.
conversation with Mr. Nielsen, the very president of the
10
company, he admitted the fraudulent scheme.
11
directly -- it's his company.
12
doing a fraudulent scheme."
13
In my
He told me
He told me directly they're
The Tenth Circuit said, "No, that's not direct.
14
Instead, the relator derived it secondhand from Nielsen, who
15
had firsthand knowledge of the alleged fraud as a result of
16
his employment.
17
The Eighth Circuit in the Hays case, same thing.
18
Thomas Conner was the finance director that Mr. Hays spoke
19
with.
20
information from an individual who has direct knowledge of the
21
alleged fraud does not himself possess direct knowledge.
The Court said a person who obtains secondhand
22
The Devlin case in the Ninth Circuit, there was a
23
employee, William Cody, supposedly told Mr. Devlin about the
24
fraud, said specifically, "Here's a fraud going on.
25
about it; I'm telling you about it."
I know
41
The Ninth Circuit rejected it and said, "No, he
derived it secondhand from Cody, who had firsthand knowledge
of the alleged fraud, not direct knowledge."
The Koerner case in the Eastern District of
Louisiana, Mr. Koerner obtained information from a coworker,
Michael Sampson.
obtained such information from an intermediary source, Michael
Sampson.
direct source, Koerner has no standing under the act.
10
The Court said no.
Koerner admittedly
Merely a recipient of the information and not a
Feldstein, District of New Jersey.
Feldstein had a
11
conversation with Dr. Sack, said that gave me direct knowledge
12
because Dr. Sack was the person who was personally responsible
13
for submitting the materials to the FDA.
14
any information that the relator learned from Dr. Sack is
15
secondhand, not direct knowledge.
16
In Smith, same thing.
17
Dr. Burrell.
18
but Smith isn't.
19
The Court said no,
Information from a
The Court said Dr. Burrell's an original source,
All of these -- every single one of these cases --
20
in fact, the Devlin case, in the 1996 case, said that at the
21
time, in the Ninth Circuit, was following the Second Circuit,
22
the Third Circuit, and the Eighth Circuit, all of which ruled
23
the exact same way, that information said to them, like Darren
24
Loftiss or Geri Hanson in our case, secondhand information.
25
You, relator, need to personally observe, have direct,
42
firsthand knowledge, direct experience of the fraud.
what Congress intended, and that's how the courts have
interpreted it.
That's
So with -- the other thing with Geri Hanson, two
other points on that.
One, if Ms. Hanson is so important to
Mr. Colquitt's knowledge, then why in his disclosure
statement, which the Tenth Circuit In Re: Natural Gas said,
"If it's not important to give to the Government for your
purposes of disclosure, you shouldn't be allowed to rely on
10
that material for purposes of establishing yourself as
11
original source," which I agree with.
12
Branch Consultants followed the same rule and
13
rejected stuff outside the -- the alleged evidence outside
14
15
Colquitt as persons with personal knowledge of the violations,
16
he told the Government this in September of '06.
17
18
43 people, who were identified by Mr.
Ms. Geri Hanson, not on the list.

people who he identified.
Not one of 43
She's not even included on it.
19
Darren Loftiss, the person who he supposedly spoke
20
with early in the Guidant years before he started at Guidant,
21
not on the list.
22
23
24
25
These people weren't even included by him in his

With respect to the Guidant issues, the reason why
that's important is when he got to Guidant, in his own
43
contemporaneous writing -- and it's at Appendix 354 of our
appendix -- Mr. Colquitt wrote that he was new to the stent
business.
any firsthand direct knowledge, no personal knowledge at all,
with respect to Guidant's activities before he got there.
He didn't -- and he admitted that he didn't have
He starts his 108 allegations where he talks about
allegations against defendants with his first day of
employment.
statement with his periods of employment.
10
He bookends the period in his disclosure

He knew absolutely
nothing about what was going on at Guidant.
11
With respect to Mr. Loftiss, even if the Court
12
views it, okay, if he had a conversation with a Loftiss or a
13
Hanson, I'm going to consider that, then you have to look at,
14
well, let's just take Mr. Colquitt's side of the story.
15
did he testify to that Mr. Loftiss supposedly said?
16
17
What
And this is important for this whole off-label

promotion dialogue as well.
18
THE COURT:
19
say.
20
beginning.
Well, I agree with what you're about to
This is significant to the point I made at the
21
I don't see Mr. Loftiss acknowledging the
22
accusation that is made that he engaged in off-label
23
promotion.
24
leap to, well, that is off-label promotion, I find
25
troublesome.
He says he's selling biliary stents.
And this
44
MR. KASSOF:
THE COURT:
MR. KASSOF:
Okay.
Is that the point you were making?
Precisely, Your Honor.
And it also
draws a distinction between what Mr. Loftiss said and he
believed was permissible versus what was off-label promotion.
He told Mr. Colquitt that he was selling biliary
stents to a cardiologist in Oklahoma.
But Mr. Colquitt
admitted that Mr. Loftiss never said anything about any kind
of sales tactics, promotion tactics, whether the doctor called
10
him, he called the doctor.
11
that you need to know for the purposes of determining
12
off-label promotion.
13
14
THE COURT:
Those are the additional facts
Now, let -- I want to go back for just
a minute while you're taking a breath.
15
MR. KASSOF:
16
THE COURT:
Sure.
Your position is that if Mr. Colquitt
17
talked to another person, even if that person is a wrongdoer,
18
that's secondhand knowledge, and you can't be the original
19
source.
20
MR. KASSOF:
21
THE COURT:
As a matter of law, yes, Your Honor.

And on the other hand, if Mr. Colquitt
22
read a memo between two wrongdoers in the file, as he's an
23
employee, is it your position that he can't be an original
24
source for that either?
25
MR. KASSOF:
No.
It depends on what the memo says.
45
1
2
THE COURT:
The memo says, "We've been getting away
with it for years" -- I'm making it up.
MR. KASSOF:
THE COURT:
I know.
"We've been getting away with it for
years, and the Good Lord willing, we'll be getting away with
it for many years to come.
How about that?
MR. KASSOF:
Very truly yours."
No.
If Mr. Colquitt -- no, meaning
it's different.
10
If Mr. Colquitt sees that memo with his own eyes,
11
he looks at the memo, it reveals on the face of the memo what
12
the key is --
13
THE COURT:
14
Why would that distinction of form where the -- I
15
mean, in the -- in my memo example, the memo itself reflects
16
the wrongdoing.
17
example -- the CEO says, "You got me.
I did it.
18
are probably 10 or 15 memos about it.
And I did it and I'm
19
acknowledging it to you.
20
today."
21
his seeing the memo that says the same thing does?
22
It just doesn't make any sense to me.
And in the conversation -- take your CEO

And there
It's as if we're in the confessional
And that doesn't make him the original source, but
MR. KASSOF:
So here's the distinction I would
23
draw, Your Honor.
If he is personally aware of, knowledgable
24
of, experiencing, directly observing, what's reflected in the
25
memo, that is enough to establish what -- if he has the memo,
46
then he can go forward.
If he's not at the company, and Mr. Nielsen in the
Grynberg case hands him an internal physical memo and says,
"Look at what's going on in this company" -- the Feldstein
case rejected something just like that.
These cases say there's an intervening agency going on.
It was an email.
The purpose of this is to encourage true
whistleblowers with direct personal knowledge, firsthand
knowledge, to come forward, not someone else.
Because then
10
what this could mean is anyone who is handed a memo, or then
11
is handed a memo or then is handed a memo, if that memo,
12
depending on what that memo says, now all of a sudden, if he
13
discloses it to every single relative, friend, acquaintance or
14
colleague, they're all subject to the direct knowledge
15
requirement, and that's not what the case law says.
16
The case law says if there's intervening agency, if
17
it's not discovered through the fruits of his own labor, it's
18
not firsthand direct knowledge.
19
cases hold.
20
21
THE COURT:
And that's what all of those
All right.
This case that you've been
referring to, Grynberg --
22
MR. KASSOF:
23
THE COURT:
24
MR. KASSOF:
25
THE COURT:
Grynberg, yes.
Can you give me a cite to that?
I sure can.
I don't remember seeing that in there.
47
MR. KASSOF:
It's 389 F 3d 1038, Tenth Circuit, 2004.
THE COURT:
MR. KASSOF:
THE COURT:
It actually should be in
Give me the full name of the case,
please.
9
10
Yes, ma'am.
both briefs.
7
8
Is that in your brief somewhere and I
just --
5
6
It's Tenth Circuit, 2004.
MR. KASSOF:
United States ex rel. Grynberg versus
Praxair, Inc., and I said 389 F 3d 1038.
11
THE COURT:
Okay.
12
All right.
Thank you.
13
MR. KASSOF:
14
THE COURT:
15
MR. HAMILTON:
16
THE COURT:

All right, Counsel.
Mr. Kassof, I'm going to give you the
17
last word because you're the movant.
18
forth a couple extra times because of the way I've teed this
19
up.
20
MR. HAMILTON:
We're going back and
Your Honor, with regard to --
21
beginning with Ms. Hanson's conversation.
They mention that
22
Ms. Hanson was not listed in the disclosure statement.
23
There's a reason for that.
24
the disclosure statement and after the lawsuit was filed.
25
so that's the reason it wouldn't be in the disclosure
The conversation occurred after

And
48
statement.
And I think this, again, sets up the problem that
we began with in terms of the defendant's argument that where
it's a single continuing scheme, the relator essentially needs
an ever-renewing source of direct and independent knowledge in
order for the Court to maintain subject matter jurisdiction
over a continued fraud.
8
9
10
Once the lawsuit is filed, the relator will not be

at the company.
But the question is, are these pieces of
knowledge the result and the fruits of his investigation.
11
And here, I think, where this is directly a
12
communication coming from a participant in the scheme, that is
13
no different than reviewing a document that Mr. Colquitt did
14
not author, which is a well-established basis for direct and
15
independent knowledge.
16
So I think that conversation with the wrongdoer is
17
a clear piece of direct and independent knowledge evidence
18
that was obtained through his efforts as opposed to through
19
the efforts of others.
20
It's not her saying, "I heard somebody else do something
21
wrong."
It's not a passed-along conversation.
It's an admission on her part.
22
Now, going back to --
23
THE COURT:
Well, counsel is citing a bunch of
24
cases to me where he is taking the position that that's not
25
sufficient.
I'm skeptical of that.
But I don't remember the
49
Grynberg case well enough to speak to it.
of me now.
I have it in front
Do you want to respond to that particular issue?
MR. HAMILTON:
I don't have all of those particular
items available at my recollection to be completely honest,
Your Honor.
THE COURT:
MR. HAMILTON:
All right.
We did cite the -- going back to the
Reagan case from the Fifth Circuit, the central premise, which
10
is, the question is, is it direct knowledge -- that's the
11
first prong -- or is it knowledge obtained through his own
12
efforts as opposed to derived from others.
13
that second prong of the analysis that I think that this is
14
direct and independent knowledge.
15
THE COURT:
16
MR. HAMILTON:
And so it's under
All right.
Now, moving to the issue of the
17
particular document, the document from Ms. Williams to Mr.
18
Colquitt with a list of conversion targets.
19
here.
20
Critical point
Under the Gonzales case, reviewing a single audit
21
document was sufficient for knowledge of a competitor.
22
particular document, while there was reference to, well, they
23
could be promoting to these physicians for catheters,
24
balloons, guide wires, et cetera.
25
The problem is, the document specifically
This
50
identifies the products and it says Xc and Xp, the Xceed and
Xpert biliary stents.
doctors for whom they say all products.
majority of them, they're identifying biliary stents for
conversion.
THE COURT:
And there are admittedly a few of those

But the great
Well, this is the point you were making
that I want to pursue with you, because my instant reaction is
not the same as what you're suggesting.
If a -- if all I have is that a vascular surgeon
10
likes biliary stents for vascular procedures, and Abbott or
11
Guidant -- and that biliary stent is supplied by Cordis or
12
Scientific American, and Abbott or Guidant have a biliary
13
stent and they let the surgeon know that they have a biliary
14
stent, what proof do you have or law do you have that that is
15
improper off-label promotion?
16
MR. HAMILTON:
Well, we have, in terms of proof,
17
specific documents from the defendant's files, including a
18
Guidant regulatory PowerPoint which identifies the definition
19
of promotion as any action which is taken to encourage a
20
customer to use or purchase a product.
21
generally.
22
That's promotion
Off-label promotion is encouraging a customer to
23
use or purchase a product in a manner that's inconsistent with
24
the label.
25
It doesn't matter if you're engaging in off-label
51
promotion.
for another off-label use.
themselves, which is obviously what happened here.
probably was more than one bad actor.
It doesn't matter if you're substitute promoting

These schemes often build upon
But we can't take this document -- and this is my
key point.
document and make it stand on its own.
8
9
There is no requirement to take this particular
What we know from Mr. Colquitt's testimony and his

other documents as to what these practices were, that were
10
employed to convert these physicians.
11
reviewed in that context.
12
There
So this document is
We know that what they did is employ an army of
13
sales representatives to chase cases at the hospitals, which
14
is what's being discussed in some of that subsequent document.
15
We know that they were training physicians using the MMC third
16
party to train physicians on off-label use, which is
17
impermissible.
18
Abbott continued that practice.
We know that they were consigning stents to
19
hospitals, as Mr. Colquitt testified, and Abbott continued
20
that practice, consigning stents to divisions of hospitals
21
that were not performing biliary procedures.
22
president, Mr. Foltz, the president of the company, testified
23
that they were allowed to be aggressive in getting these
24
products even to customers where the customers were saying no,
25
get the product on the shelf, and that consigning the product,
And the
52
in fact, encourages or increases the likelihood that the
customer will use the product.
And so when you see conversion targets, it's -- if
that were the only document that we came into court with to
prove the whole case, that would be a shortcoming.
But when you see that and you put it in the light
of Mr. Colquitt's knowledge for what was being done to convert
these physicians, and there's a litany of things, from
practice building and on and on, those have been well dealt
10
11
with.
So in this light, that is evidence of off-label
12
promotion, targeting physicians not currently using your
13
products, and trying to get them to pick up a use of your
14
biliary stent for an off-label use.
15
THE COURT:
16
MR. HAMILTON:
17
THE COURT:
18
19
20
21
Excuse me.
I'm sorry.
No problem.
Give me your best shot at your
preemployment.
MR. HAMILTON:
The preemployment, I believe, starts
principally -- I think there's two components.

One, under the Bahrani case, Bahrani I analyzed at
22
the summary judgment stage, the Tenth Circuit said that
23
Bahrani's direct and independent knowledge of the conduct,
24
beginning with his employment in 1996, was sufficient to
25
establish him as an original source of the conduct dating back
53
to 1991.
the conduct, and the Bahrani case specifically stands for that
principle.
So under the case law, we're looking at the scope of
Second, going back to this PowerPoint, which is
training these reps with regard to identifying these biliary
stents as endovascular therapies, identifying the sales going
back to 1999 and the knowledge that Mr. Colquitt knew that
99 percent of these product were being used off label once he
got into the field, and that the prior audits, the 2002 audit,
10
demonstrates going back to that timeframe, that 99 percent of
11
these products were being used off label.
12
So when you take this in connection, being trained
13
on vascular anatomy, minimal reference to biliary anatomy, and
14
you put that through the lens of all of the things that he
15
learned and the reference in the PowerPoint to a 2003
16
copyright and sales data going back a period of years, then I
17
think we connect the dots even with the direct and independent
18
knowledge requirement for those time periods, if that were
19
imposed, which I don't think Bahrani places.
20
21
22
With regard to Mr. Loftiss, again, there's no

requirement -- here's the key component.
There is no requirement, again, that we make any
23
piece of evidence stand on its own.
Mr. Colquitt worked with
24
Mr. Loftiss, witnessed his activities and witnessed the
25
activities at Guidant.
He knew what the Guidant reps were
54
trained to do to sell biliary stents.
And so does in and of itself the fact that Darren
Loftiss was selling biliary stents for vascular procedures
prove anything if that's the only fact in the case?
no.
been used historically off label and when you're familiar with
the practices that Guidant is using to promote those products,
and you add a piece of knowledge that this individual has been
doing that since 2002, I think you have to connect the dots.
10
And all of this -- it's easy in this forum to get
Again,
But when you know that 99 percent of those products have
11
distracted and only take things in isolation, because we're
12
not discussing all of the evidence that comes from the time
13
period of his employment.
14
the -- the question is his direct and independent knowledge in
15
total and to what extent does that span.
16
analysis, you don't eliminate everything that he learned from
17
the time period of his employment, which provided the context
18
and explanation for these other items.
But I think all of the evidence,
19
So thank you, Your Honor.
20
THE COURT:
Okay.
21
All right.
Last word.
22
MR. KASSOF:
And in making that
Thank you very much.
I'm going to
23
briefly hit Hanson, Gonzales and Bahrani and maybe Loftiss, if
24
you want me to.
25
Hanson.
First off, starting point, what did Mr.
55
Colquitt testify Ms. Hanson said?
words -- put aside the dispute about whether the conversation
happened.
What Mr. Colquitt's
Let's just focus on what Mr. Colquitt said.

Mr. Colquitt testified that Geri Hanson said that
management wanted to send a letter to hospitals, after the FDA
meeting, reminding them of the biliary stent label, to three
people.
8
9
Hanson said -- Colquitt said Hanson told him, "I

convinced management to only send it to two."
So the issue is
10
whether a third person in the hospital was going to get a
11
letter reminding the hospital that these biliary stents were
12
only indicated for use in the bile duct.
13
That is -- there's no basis there to suggest that
14
that conversation alone somehow gives him direct knowledge of
15
some grand scheme, when that's all he has.
16
all he's got, nothing more than that.
17
That's absolutely
Gonzales, that underscores the example about the
18
documents.
19
where the relator was an original source because he, quote,
20
personally analyzed defendant's billing practices.
21
directly viewed the bills that were supposedly fraudulent.
22
And the Court held that the original source provisions
23
requires that, quote, an insider employee presents specific
24
facts that explain how he saw the fraud with his own eyes.
25
Because Gonzales, the case that was cited, was
He
So there, it's not surprising that the relator was
56
allowed to use -- to become an original source based on the
document when he saw the fraudulent bills firsthand with
personal observation.
That's most certainly sufficient.
But seeing a document from which you -- like the
power -- the business plan, where you then have to draw --
you're looking at the face of the document, we're all looking
at it.
eyes, only after hearing all of the inferences and connections
and speculations, that's the key.
10
I'm staring at it trying to see the fraud with my own
Rockwell says predictions, that doesn't suffice for
11
direct knowledge.
You need to see it with your own eyes.
12
Vuyyuru from the Fourth Circuit, Branch Consultants from the
13
Eastern District of Louisiana, says mere suspicion isn't
14
enough.
15
So if you see something and you suspect, "Oh, I
16
see, if there's a conversion going on, I suspect that that
17
means to get those doctors to convert, they must have been
18
promoting it off label," insufficient as a matter of law.
19
That's what Vuyyuru said and Branch Consultants said.
20
The Bahrani case, ultimately, starting point,
21
Bahrani in the Tenth Circuit said that Bahrani's knowledge of
22
what transpired was far too limited to allow a jury to
23
reasonably find that he was an original source for his meat
24
export claims.
25
So ultimately the Tenth Circuit rejected
57
his original source status because he didn't have firsthand,
personal knowledge.
3
4
The procedural history is complicated, right?
But
I'll do my best on it.
Summary judgment granted on the merits, that the
False Claims Act claim was actionable.
Tenth Circuit.
affirm Tenth Circuit, based on the merits, and you can also
affirm, in the alternative, based on original source grounds.
10
It goes up to the
The defendant argues you can -- you should
Tenth Circuit said -- and this is Bahrani I.
The
11
Tenth Circuit said, "No, we disagree with you.
12
reversing on the merits.
13
to the alternative grounds to affirm, we're not going to
14
affirm, because we're reversing on the merits.
15
let him go to a jury to see what he can establish with his own
16
firsthand, direct knowledge."
17
Ultimately he did.
18
Circuit.
19
status over those claims.
20
It is actionable.
We're
And with respect
We're going to
Comes back to the Tenth
The Tenth Circuit says you've got no original source
So it certainly doesn't help Colquitt with respect
21
to this issue, and it's certainly not an outlier case from the
22
uniform cases that hold that -- that reject this continuous
23
scheme theory.
24
25
Last point on Loftiss.
Again, you need to look at,
one, it's barred as a matter of law, because it's a secondhand
58
conversation; two, you have to look at what Mr. Loftiss told
him.
3
4
I asked Mr. Colquitt, "What did you know?

Mr. Loftiss say to you?"
5
6
"He said he was selling biliary stents to a

cardiologist in Oklahoma."
7
8
I asked him, "Did he tell you that he was promoting

it off label?"
"No."
10
11
What did
"Do you know anything about the sales tactics he

used?"
12
"No."
13
"Do you know whether the doctor called Mr. Loftiss
14
or Mr. Loftiss called the doctor?"
15
"I don't know.
Mr. Loftiss never said."
16
That's certainly not firsthand, direct knowledge of
17
anything, much less personal knowledge of some kind of
18
fraudulent scheme.
19
THE COURT:
All right.
Let me -- before you
20
conclude, let me ask you if you want to comment on the
21
PowerPoint dated February 23rd, 2004, in terms of giving Mr.
22
Colquitt direct and independent knowledge of preemployment
23
activity.
24
MR. KASSOF:
I would.
25
This -- so the first time Mr. Colquitt saw it was
59
in February of 2004.
before then.
That's for starters.
He never saw it
Second, there's absolutely nothing in this document
that suggests we're going to go out there and promote these
products off label.
there, which all that does is recognize that doctors are using
biliary stents in off-label procedures, in the peripheral
vasculature.
It recognizes the market that's out
Guidant, recognizing that there is a market of
10
doctors, who in the words of Dr. Jacobs, who voluntarily
11
testified in this case, that we were screaming for more
12
biliary stents because they thought it was in their patients'
13
best interest and it was the standard of care in the medical
14
community at the time, Guidant recognizing that there's a
15
market there to sell their products legally is not in any way
16
an off-label scheme.
17
Telling the sales reps that you've got doctors who
18
are -- want to buy our products, because they're good products
19
and they like them, even if they're going to use them off
20
label, they can buy them.
21
You can't tell them that it's better for use in the iliac,
22
renal or SFA than it is for some vascular-indicated stent.
23
You can't tell them -- push them to buy it for off label.
24
That's off-label promotion.
25
You just can't promote it to them.
You've got to stick to the label.
The FDA is clear
60
on that.
And in your communicated word, whether in writing
or orally, you cannot promote it off label.
And there's not a single thing in this document
suggesting that off-label promotion was going in 2004, much
less in any prior periods.
THE COURT:
Very well briefed and well argued.
I'm going to grant the defendant's motion as to the
All right.
Thank you.
preemployment period.
10
The other two issues I'm going to take under
11
advisement, and I'll give you a decision on those next week,
12
probably in a very abbreviated form, just as to outcome.
13
And if I think it would serve the law, write an
14
opinion later.
But I will advise you next week of my
15
decision, at least by -- if not next week, very shortly
16
thereafter.
17
But I will grant the defendant's motion for summary
18
judgment on original source holding that Mr. Colquitt does not
19
have direct and independent knowledge as to the preemployment
20
period.
21
22
The Abbott issue and the post-employment issue I

will take under advisement.
23
Anything else for today?
24
MR. KASSOF:
25
MR. HAMILTON:
No.
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you.
(Proceedings concluded.)
62
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER
2
3
I, D. Keith Johnson, RDR, CRR, Federal Official
Realtime Court Reporter, in and for the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas, do hereby certify
that pursuant to Sections 753, Title 28, United States Code,
that the foregoing is a true and correct transcript of the
stenographically reported proceedings held in the
above-entitled matter and that the transcript format is in
10
conformance with the regulations of the Judicial Conference of
11
the United States.
12
Dated this 19th day of September, 2014.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
/s/ D. KEITH JOHNSON____________________

D. KEITH JOHNSON, RDR, CRR
TEXAS CSR NO. 3781
FEDERAL OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
1100 COMMERCE STREET, ROOM 1572
DALLAS, TEXAS 75242
214.753.2325
admission [1] 48/21

admissions [1] 31/1
'03 [1] 14/23
60654 [3] 2/21 3/7 3/10
admit [1] 19/9
'04 [2] 5/16 6/20
651-5000 [1] 3/4
admitted [4] 38/25 40/10 43/3 44/8
'05 [1] 14/24
admittedly [2] 41/6 50/2
7
'06 [7] 5/16 5/17 5/17 5/20 5/20 6/20 42/16
admonished [1] 27/6
700 [1] 3/3
'88 [1] 18/18
adverse [1] 27/17
737-7777 [3] 2/4 2/13 2/17
advise [2] 4/8 60/14
/
75201 [3] 1/16 1/20 2/8
advisement [2] 60/11 60/22
75219 [1] 3/3
/s [1] 62/14
advocates [1] 25/20
75242 [2] 3/23 62/16
affirm [4] 57/8 57/9 57/13 57/14
1
753 [1] 62/6
affirmative [1] 29/23
10 [2] 18/17 45/18
753-2325 [1] 3/24
afitzgerald [1] 2/9
10-year [1] 18/15
7777 [3] 2/4 2/13 2/17
after [31] 6/7 6/17 7/1 7/12 8/3 9/11 12/24 13/22
1038 [2] 47/2 47/10
7945 [2] 1/20 2/8
14/17 14/18 14/23 15/3 16/22 16/22 17/5 17/22
108 [1] 43/6
7970 [1] 1/16
18/3 18/12 20/8 25/7 26/18 27/2 27/20 27/25
1100 [8] 2/3 2/3 2/11 2/12 2/16 2/16 3/23 62/16
28/10 32/17 35/13 47/23 47/24 55/5 56/8
8
15 [1] 45/18
afterwards [1] 14/11
1572 [2] 3/23 62/16
862-2000 [1] 2/21
again [7] 18/13 35/5 48/2 53/20 53/22 54/4
16 [1] 21/16
862-3253 [1] 3/7
57/24
862-3813 [1] 3/11
17 [3] 1/11 4/2 21/16
against [5] 8/13 9/10 11/21 12/6 43/7
1769 [1] 4/7
agency [2] 46/6 46/16
9
1988 [1] 18/18
aggressive [2] 30/13 51/23
99 percent [3] 53/8 53/10 54/5
1991 [3] 18/20 31/25 53/1
agree [2] 42/11 43/18
1993 [2] 13/15 13/24
ahead [1] 21/20
A
1995 [1] 17/19
AIDED [1] 3/15
ABBOTT [59] 1/6 1/7 4/7 5/16 5/18 5/22 6/8 8/4 all [70]
1996 [3] 31/24 41/20 52/24
8/6 8/7 8/9 8/13 9/11 9/23 9/23 9/24 9/25 15/12 allegation [10] 7/5 10/2 10/19 10/20 11/17 11/18
1997 [1] 14/20
20/6 20/8 20/10 20/16 21/10 21/23 22/1 22/3
1999 [6] 13/13 13/22 17/20 34/5 35/12 53/7
15/19 39/9 39/14 39/17
22/25 23/19 24/3 24/3 24/4 24/7 25/13 26/15
19th [1] 62/12
allegations [20] 6/5 9/15 9/21 13/7 13/12 13/16
26/19 26/19 27/5 27/6 27/13 27/22 28/11 31/4
15/2 15/23 17/23 18/1 18/14 18/14 19/6 19/12
2
31/9 31/12 32/17 33/18 35/20 36/2 37/2 37/3
26/2 33/17 34/3 39/16 43/6 43/7
37/19 37/20 37/25 39/1 50/10 50/12 51/17 51/19 allege [3] 14/21 19/8 19/8
20 [1] 20/10
60/21
2000 [1] 2/21
alleged [15] 10/14 12/19 13/14 13/24 14/20
Abbott's [4] 22/11 23/3 24/20 27/7
2002 [4] 32/8 35/3 53/9 54/9
16/21 17/19 18/23 18/25 39/20 39/23 40/15
Abbott-specific [1] 26/19
2003 [5] 14/21 15/3 34/14 34/20 53/15
40/21 41/3 42/13
abbreviated [1] 60/12
20036 [3] 2/4 2/12 2/17
allow [1] 56/22
2004 [12] 6/6 17/19 35/22 35/23 35/24 36/2 36/3 abeato [1] 2/5
allowed [6] 17/4 17/8 17/11 42/9 51/23 56/1
ability [1] 17/13
47/1 47/2 58/21 59/1 60/4
alone [3] 17/23 18/4 55/14
able [2] 11/12 28/25
2005 [1] 14/20
along [1] 48/19
about [44] 8/4 8/6 8/7 8/9 9/20 9/24 10/7 10/22 already [1] 32/24
2006 [7] 6/7 8/3 9/12 20/11 25/12 27/2 39/2
10/25 11/3 13/22 14/8 14/9 19/10 20/5 25/12
2007 [2] 27/4 33/19
also [6] 8/4 26/16 34/4 34/15 44/3 57/8
26/17 28/13 35/21 35/23 35/24 36/2 36/4 36/6
2008 [1] 31/8
alternative [2] 57/9 57/13
36/10 36/13 36/14 36/19 38/14 39/1 39/4 39/17 although [1] 13/21
2014 [3] 1/11 4/2 62/12
40/23 40/25 40/25 43/6 43/10 43/18 44/8 45/7
202 [3] 2/4 2/13 2/17
altogether [1] 15/7
45/18 55/2 55/17 58/10
21 [1] 20/20
am [5] 5/6 6/16 8/4 8/12 17/14
above [1] 62/9
214 [5] 1/16 1/20 2/8 3/4 3/24
amended [1] 12/16
above-entitled [1] 62/9
214.753.2325 [1] 62/17
AMERICA [1] 1/3
absence [2] 16/1 18/6
2323 [1] 3/2
American [2] 24/12 50/12
absolute [1] 17/12
2325 [1] 3/24
among [4] 13/25 27/5 27/11 31/12
absolutely [5] 38/25 39/25 43/9 55/15 59/3
234-7945 [2] 1/20 2/8
analysis [5] 26/21 30/19 30/21 49/13 54/16
accepted [1] 8/17
234-7970 [1] 1/16
analyzed [3] 32/1 52/21 55/20
according [2] 22/7 24/20
23rd [1] 58/21
anatomies [1] 34/17
accounts [2] 21/12 28/17
28 [2] 20/11 62/6
anatomy [2] 53/13 53/13
accusation [1] 43/22
ANDREA [1] 2/6
3
acknowledging [2] 43/21 45/19
ANDREW [3] 2/1 2/19 9/7
300 [3] 2/20 3/6 3/10
acquaintance [1] 46/13
andrew.kassof [1] 2/22
312 [3] 2/21 3/7 3/11
across [3] 13/6 13/8 27/24
another [10] 14/24 15/22 16/13 16/15 17/18
act [2] 41/9 57/6
325 [3] 1/15 1/19 2/7
30/6 38/14 39/6 44/17 51/2
3253 [1] 3/7
action [3] 30/5 30/13 50/19
any [27] 6/8 7/21 8/12 9/10 9/22 10/25 11/1 14/9
actionable [2] 57/6 57/12
3300 [3] 1/15 1/19 2/7
14/15 14/17 15/2 15/12 26/5 30/14 36/6 36/20
actions [4] 28/23 29/23 30/10 30/11
354 [1] 43/1
36/23 36/25 37/11 41/14 43/4 44/8 45/13 50/19
active [1] 5/21
3781 [1] 62/15
53/22 59/15 60/5
activities [5] 15/12 30/2 43/5 53/24 53/25
3813 [1] 3/11
anybody [2] 10/25 37/6
activity [7] 20/16 20/17 22/7 26/10 30/4 30/4
389 [2] 47/2 47/10
anyone [1] 46/10
58/23
3:06-CV-1769-M [1] 1/5
anything [13] 6/15 8/7 10/24 14/10 14/11 29/24
actor [1] 51/4
3d [2] 47/2 47/10
36/14 38/1 44/8 54/4 58/10 58/17 60/23
actually [7] 18/9 22/24 23/7 23/15 31/9 33/6
anyway [1] 38/23
4
47/5
apologize [1] 21/2
43 [2] 42/14 42/17
add [1] 54/8
APPEARANCES [3] 1/13 2/1 3/1
addition [1] 35/1
appendix [3] 33/10 43/1 43/2
5
additional [2] 16/9 44/10
apply [1] 24/8
5000 [1] 3/4
address [1] 5/7
approach [3] 19/23 25/9 32/23
5:00 [2] 4/10 4/11
addressed [1] 31/18
approaches [1] 7/9
'
A
approval [1] 31/10
approved [3] 24/15 34/6 37/10
April [10] 5/17 5/20 6/20 20/11 35/22 35/23
35/24 36/2 36/2 39/2
April 28 [1] 20/11
are [42] 5/10 5/25 7/20 10/5 18/13 18/24 21/21
21/25 22/4 22/20 22/22 22/24 23/11 23/13 23/16
23/25 24/2 24/9 24/25 26/1 26/7 28/21 28/23
30/7 33/4 33/10 33/23 33/25 35/1 35/22 37/10
38/8 38/9 38/10 38/12 40/5 44/10 45/18 48/9
50/2 59/6 59/18
area [1] 27/22
aren't [2] 16/12 17/23
argue [3] 4/18 5/1 36/11
argued [1] 60/7
argues [2] 40/8 57/7
argument [9] 4/5 7/13 8/1 8/12 31/23 32/2
36/24 37/4 48/3
army [1] 51/12
around [1] 20/12
artery [2] 25/22 37/15
as [66]
aside [2] 4/15 55/2
ask [1] 58/20
asked [2] 58/3 58/7
asking [1] 23/24
asserted [1] 7/17
associate [1] 15/9
assume [1] 9/20
Assuming [1] 11/9
at [67]
attached [2] 20/14 27/7
attempting [1] 25/1
attendance [2] 16/23 17/2
audit [2] 49/20 53/9
audits [2] 32/8 53/9
author [1] 48/14
available [2] 37/11 49/5
AVE [3] 2/3 2/11 2/16
AVENUE [1] 3/2
avoid [1] 30/4
award [1] 12/18
awarding [1] 14/4
aware [2] 11/16 45/23
away [4] 4/14 45/1 45/4 45/5
B
back [22] 4/14 4/14 9/6 22/13 29/22 31/25 34/4
34/15 34/20 34/21 35/2 35/12 44/13 47/17 48/22
49/8 52/25 53/4 53/7 53/10 53/16 57/17
backdrop [2] 11/21 12/6
background [1] 26/25
bad [1] 51/4
Bahrani [10] 31/18 31/24 52/21 52/21 53/2 53/19
54/23 56/20 56/21 57/10
Bahrani's [2] 52/23 56/21
balance [1] 12/8
balloon [1] 31/9
balloons [2] 38/8 49/24
BARBARA [2] 1/11 3/21
barred [1] 57/25
based [9] 6/4 6/14 7/17 18/15 19/15 39/15 56/1
57/8 57/9
basis [2] 48/14 55/13
BD [2] 14/13 14/14
be [39] 4/9 6/5 6/6 6/8 6/14 6/17 6/19 7/13 7/22
7/23 11/6 11/10 11/21 15/1 15/24 15/24 16/8
16/15 17/11 28/1 28/6 28/25 30/12 35/7 35/7
39/21 39/23 40/8 42/9 44/18 44/23 45/5 47/5
47/25 48/8 49/5 49/23 51/23 52/5
beating [1] 25/10
BEATO [5] 2/1 2/2 2/11 2/15 4/17
became [1] 15/8

because [38] 5/25 7/4 8/4 10/2 10/18 10/21
10/24 11/21 13/17 14/16 15/3 17/12 18/19 21/7
21/9 22/14 24/1 24/9 30/6 30/19 33/6 36/17
36/21 37/12 39/22 41/12 46/9 47/17 47/18 50/7
54/11 55/18 55/19 57/1 57/14 57/25 59/12 59/18
become [1] 56/1
been [14] 12/3 24/5 27/16 29/1 30/10 31/13 33/5
45/1 45/4 46/20 52/9 54/6 54/8 56/17
before [21] 1/11 4/22 5/18 6/6 6/14 6/15 14/10
14/17 18/8 23/6 24/6 24/10 32/7 32/8 35/24 36/2
39/1 42/20 43/5 58/19 59/2
beforehand [1] 35/12
began [3] 18/2 31/24 48/3
begin [1] 20/5
beginning [5] 32/13 34/5 43/20 47/21 52/24
being [11] 5/20 7/3 7/17 24/2 29/10 36/16 51/14
52/7 53/8 53/11 53/12
believe [10] 4/21 5/25 8/8 23/2 26/4 26/12 30/14
31/3 33/4 52/19
believed [1] 44/5
benefit [1] 5/6
best [4] 36/22 52/17 57/4 59/13
better [2] 38/19 59/21
between [5] 4/10 17/12 23/25 44/4 44/22
bile [2] 38/11 55/12
biliary [62] 6/2 7/6 7/9 8/2 21/22 21/24 22/22
22/25 23/13 23/14 23/16 23/18 23/25 24/1 24/7
24/8 24/9 25/21 26/11 27/25 28/21 29/10 29/13
31/11 33/19 33/22 34/8 34/22 35/4 36/15 36/17
36/21 37/1 37/6 37/14 37/19 37/21 37/22 37/22
38/2 38/5 38/11 38/18 43/23 44/6 50/2 50/4
50/10 50/11 50/12 50/13 51/21 52/14 53/5 53/13
54/1 54/3 55/6 55/11 58/5 59/7 59/12
biliary-indicated [1] 37/14
billing [3] 14/22 17/21 55/20
bills [2] 55/21 56/2
bit [1] 26/25
black [1] 33/2
black-and-white [1] 33/2
blood [1] 33/20
blown [1] 23/8
bonuses [1] 12/18
bookends [1] 43/8
BOONE [1] 3/2
Boston [4] 23/10 24/14 36/12 36/15
both [9] 12/22 16/20 16/21 17/11 20/7 24/15
25/17 31/4 47/6
bottle [1] 29/22
bottom [1] 28/25
BRAMBLETT [2] 3/1 4/24
Branch [4] 15/13 42/12 56/12 56/19
breath [1] 44/14
Brian [1] 25/6
brief [2] 12/15 47/3
briefed [1] 60/7
briefing [2] 6/9 6/10
briefly [2] 31/15 54/23
briefs [1] 47/6
bright [2] 10/11 16/7
bright-line [2] 10/11 16/7
broke [1] 12/21
BSX [1] 23/9
build [1] 51/2
building [4] 29/12 34/1 34/1 52/9
bunch [1] 48/23
Burrell [1] 41/17
Burrell's [1] 41/17
business [8] 20/23 21/15 22/6 23/3 23/17 25/12
43/3 56/5
but [52] 4/15 5/9 6/11 6/23 7/9 7/16 7/23 8/22
10/11 10/20 11/1 11/3 11/20 12/6 14/9 14/15
16/8 17/11 17/20 20/22 21/13 23/5 23/8 23/11
28/5 28/10 28/13 30/4 31/6 33/7 34/16 34/20
37/18 38/4 38/5 38/23 39/14 39/19 41/18 44/7

45/20 48/9 48/25 50/3 51/5 52/6 54/5 54/13 56/4
57/3 60/14 60/17
buy [3] 59/18 59/20 59/23
C
call [4] 23/8 27/21 27/23 28/19
call-out [1] 23/8
called [7] 21/3 21/5 27/5 44/9 44/10 58/13 58/14
calls [1] 36/20
came [2] 12/12 52/4
campaign [1] 25/15
campaigns [2] 29/12 29/12
can [35] 5/7 5/24 6/4 6/6 6/7 6/14 6/17 6/19
7/23 9/10 10/1 10/3 11/16 12/3 12/5 12/12 16/8
20/25 25/4 27/9 28/5 28/15 32/21 33/25 34/4
35/18 36/2 37/11 46/1 46/23 46/24 57/7 57/8
57/15 59/20
can't [17] 10/18 15/24 16/25 33/21 37/12 38/20
38/21 39/19 39/21 39/23 40/8 44/18 44/23 51/5
59/20 59/21 59/23
cannot [6] 7/13 7/22 10/9 15/1 19/8 60/2
car [1] 10/23
cardiologist [3] 21/17 44/7 58/6
cardiologists [1] 22/22
care [2] 39/10 59/13
carotids [1] 25/17
case [63]
cases [13] 10/5 11/1 11/15 11/20 13/17 16/12
39/24 41/19 46/6 46/19 48/24 51/13 57/22
catalog [1] 38/1
cath [3] 28/2 28/17 28/24
catheter [2] 14/7 14/14
catheters [2] 38/10 49/23
cause [1] 30/12
central [1] 49/9
CEO [2] 45/16 45/17
certainly [7] 26/12 30/25 34/10 56/3 57/20 57/21
58/16
CERTIFICATE [1] 62/1
certify [1] 62/5
cetera [2] 22/16 49/24
challenge [1] 23/22
chamilton [1] 1/17
change [1] 7/8
chart [1] 22/15
chase [1] 51/13
Chatrathi [1] 25/14
CHICAGO [3] 2/21 3/7 3/10
chief [2] 40/3 40/5
choose [1] 37/11
Chris [1] 20/3
CHRISTOPHER [1] 1/14
CIPOLLONE [3] 2/2 2/11 2/15
Circuit [31] 10/14 14/19 14/25 15/17 31/19 32/1
32/1 40/1 40/7 40/13 40/17 40/22 41/1 41/21
41/21 41/22 41/22 42/7 47/1 47/2 49/9 52/22
56/12 56/21 56/25 57/7 57/8 57/10 57/11 57/18
57/18
Circuit's [1] 13/1
circumscribed [1] 11/22
circumstance [1] 30/23
cite [2] 46/23 49/8
cited [3] 32/7 32/8 55/18
citing [1] 48/23
claim [12] 6/1 6/14 6/18 6/18 7/10 7/17 9/10
10/15 12/10 12/13 12/14 57/6
claimed [1] 17/22
claims [19] 6/7 6/8 9/10 12/5 12/21 12/22 12/24
12/25 13/23 14/25 18/6 18/19 30/7 30/12 31/25
32/4 56/24 57/6 57/19
clear [4] 10/11 12/5 48/17 59/25
cleared [1] 37/10
clerk [1] 20/1
contact [1] 9/22

CONTD [2] 2/1 3/1
cloak [1] 31/11
contemporaneous [1] 43/1
close [1] 13/10
contended [1] 30/17
closed [1] 27/5
context [6] 21/7 24/13 25/5 26/8 51/11 54/17
closed-door [1] 27/5
continuation [2] 26/14 31/8
cocktail [1] 8/15
continue [6] 12/18 18/24 18/25 30/4 30/12 31/5
code [2] 29/13 62/6
continued [20] 5/19 7/11 7/12 10/2 10/3 11/13
coding [1] 29/17
14/22 14/24 15/8 16/22 17/7 17/10 17/21 18/3
Cody [2] 40/23 41/2
19/9 30/3 35/12 48/7 51/17 51/19
coincidentally [1] 32/16
continues [4] 7/1 7/6 11/5 19/6
colleague [1] 46/14
continuing [3] 10/15 30/2 48/4
COLQUITT [58] 1/4 4/6 4/20 5/12 5/21 6/4 6/14 continuous [9] 11/15 12/19 13/14 14/22 16/21
6/17 8/5 9/9 9/20 15/7 20/11 20/17 23/4 25/10
18/15 18/16 18/22 57/22
25/13 25/14 25/16 25/19 26/2 26/17 27/3 27/20 contract [4] 14/7 14/15 18/12 18/20
27/23 28/4 28/13 29/1 29/2 29/19 30/16 30/24
contracts [11] 7/20 7/23 14/4 14/13 14/13 14/16
34/24 35/2 35/10 35/23 42/15 43/2 44/6 44/7
18/16 18/16 18/23 18/23 18/24
44/16 44/21 45/8 45/10 48/13 49/18 51/19 53/7 conversation [16] 28/14 29/4 30/17 31/12 39/4
53/23 55/1 55/3 55/4 55/8 57/20 58/3 58/22
40/9 41/11 43/12 45/16 47/21 47/23 48/16 48/19
58/25 60/18
55/2 55/14 58/1
Colquitt's [23] 20/6 21/10 22/10 25/7 26/8 26/13 conversations [2] 35/1 40/4
27/18 28/7 28/10 30/20 31/13 32/7 32/14 33/17 conversations that [1] 40/4
34/2 34/14 35/8 38/25 42/6 43/14 51/8 52/7 55/1 conversion [12] 21/8 21/14 21/15 21/24 23/18
come [6] 4/14 10/9 19/5 19/7 45/6 46/9
25/25 26/10 36/4 49/18 50/5 52/3 56/16
comes [7] 18/25 19/1 19/2 19/2 27/19 54/12
convert [5] 25/1 37/2 51/10 52/7 56/17
57/17
converting [1] 36/13
coming [1] 48/12
convince [2] 8/18 8/19
comment [1] 58/20
convinced [1] 55/9
Comments [1] 36/4
copyright [2] 34/13 53/16
COMMERCE [2] 3/23 62/16
Cordis [8] 23/9 24/5 24/12 24/15 36/12 36/15
committed [2] 25/16 27/13
37/19 50/11
communicate [1] 27/11
Cordis's [1] 37/22
communicated [1] 60/1
Corporation [1] 1/7
communication [1] 48/12
correct [6] 4/18 4/24 4/25 5/2 5/13 62/7
communications [1] 40/6
could [8] 16/15 22/9 27/17 28/13 31/13 32/4
community [1] 59/14
46/10 49/23
companies [1] 5/19
counsel [5] 9/3 26/22 35/18 47/14 48/23
company [17] 6/16 6/18 6/25 7/12 9/11 13/13
counsel's [1] 26/23
17/20 20/8 26/18 31/24 40/2 40/10 40/11 46/2
counterpart [4] 20/18 25/7 25/9 25/10
46/4 48/9 51/22
country [1] 27/24
company's [1] 24/18
couple [2] 13/11 47/18
competition [1] 25/10
court [37] 1/1 3/21 3/22 4/3 6/13 10/8 11/23
competitor [2] 23/9 49/21
12/15 12/21 12/25 14/5 14/19 17/5 17/11 17/19
complaint [5] 9/15 13/7 18/14 18/15 31/14
17/22 17/24 18/5 18/7 18/18 18/19 39/5 39/7
complaints [1] 12/17
39/8 40/3 40/8 40/19 41/6 41/13 41/17 43/11
completely [2] 26/6 49/5
48/6 52/4 55/22 62/4 62/5 62/15
complicated [1] 57/3
Court's [2] 17/13 26/21
component [1] 53/21
courts [4] 13/4 17/16 19/5 42/2
components [2] 24/14 52/20
cover [1] 11/11
COMPUTER [1] 3/15
covering [1] 16/16
COMPUTER-AIDED [1] 3/15
coworker [1] 41/5
concern [1] 28/21
create [1] 34/11
concerns [1] 27/11
created [1] 23/17
conclude [1] 58/20
critical [4] 26/4 30/19 31/3 49/18
concluded [1] 61/2
critically [1] 29/9
conclusively [1] 23/3
CRR [3] 3/20 62/3 62/14
conduct [7] 7/18 18/1 26/8 32/4 52/23 52/25
CSR [1] 62/15
53/2
current [5] 20/23 21/12 22/1 22/3 27/22
Conference [1] 62/10
currently [3] 24/20 38/19 52/12
confessional [1] 45/19
customer [5] 24/24 25/1 50/20 50/22 52/2
conformance [1] 62/10
customers [6] 22/1 22/3 27/14 36/5 51/24 51/24
Congress [4] 11/22 12/8 19/13 42/2
cut [4] 7/3 11/6 30/7 39/22
connect [2] 53/17 54/9
cut-off [1] 30/7
CONNECTICUT [3] 2/3 2/11 2/16
CV [1] 1/5
connection [4] 33/19 33/22 34/22 53/12
D
connections [1] 56/8
Conner [1] 40/18
D.C [3] 2/4 2/12 2/17
consider [1] 43/13
DALLAS [8] 1/2 1/12 1/16 1/20 2/8 3/3 3/23
considered [2] 10/8 39/5
62/16
consigning [3] 51/18 51/20 51/25
damages [2] 11/7 11/23
consignment [1] 25/18
DANIEL [1] 3/9
consistent [2] 13/1 38/21
daniel.siegfried [1] 3/11
constitutes [1] 30/16
darkness [1] 11/12
Consultants [4] 15/13 42/12 56/12 56/19
Darren [4] 35/2 41/23 42/19 54/2
data [3] 34/14 34/21 53/16

date [1] 30/8
dated [3] 20/11 58/21 62/12
dating [2] 35/12 52/25
DAVID [1] 2/14
day [2] 43/7 62/12
deal [1] 28/5
deals [1] 31/3
dealt [1] 52/9
deception [1] 39/16
decide [1] 4/11
decided [1] 19/6
decision [2] 60/11 60/15
declaration [1] 28/8
defeat [1] 8/18
defect [12] 6/24 7/1 9/19 9/21 10/3 10/14 10/21
11/3 11/5 11/7 11/13 15/23
defects [1] 18/25
defendant [6] 7/1 13/19 13/21 31/23 39/10 57/7
defendant's [6] 4/6 48/3 50/17 55/20 60/8 60/17
defendants [9] 1/9 2/19 9/7 13/15 21/9 30/7
30/15 30/17 43/7
defense [4] 4/23 7/7 8/12 8/13
defined [1] 13/5
defines [1] 10/14
definition [1] 50/18
demonstrate [1] 26/14
demonstrates [5] 22/10 23/3 27/8 30/3 53/10
departure [1] 18/3
depending [1] 46/12
depends [1] 44/25
deposition [1] 28/11
derivative [1] 7/15
derived [5] 8/9 20/23 40/14 41/2 49/12
describe [2] 21/8 21/14
described [2] 12/14 14/2
despite [1] 34/7
determined [2] 10/6 31/20
determining [1] 44/11
develop [2] 11/14 16/8
devices [1] 27/15
Devlin [3] 40/22 40/23 41/20
dfierst [1] 2/18
dialogue [1] 43/17
did [17] 13/21 14/1 14/6 24/15 29/5 31/9 43/15
45/17 45/18 48/13 49/8 51/12 54/25 57/17 58/3
58/3 58/7
didn't [9] 14/9 14/15 14/16 19/10 19/11 28/8
43/3 43/3 57/1
difference [1] 23/25
different [14] 5/19 7/8 7/8 7/9 7/16 7/20 10/20
11/18 11/24 18/17 23/16 24/18 45/9 48/13
dimensions [1] 38/12
dinners [1] 34/2
direct [73]
directed [2] 6/3 9/8
direction [1] 22/8
directly [6] 26/18 40/11 40/11 45/24 48/11 55/21
director [4] 28/18 28/24 28/24 40/18
disagree [2] 5/23 57/11
disclosed [3] 11/9 28/12 29/20
discloses [2] 6/25 46/13
disclosure [12] 6/11 12/3 19/14 33/7 42/6 42/9
42/14 42/23 43/8 47/22 47/24 47/25
disclosures [2] 11/22 12/7
discovered [1] 46/17
discrete [3] 12/13 12/21 12/25
discussed [2] 35/3 51/14
discussing [3] 27/24 32/10 54/12
discussion [4] 9/5 26/22 28/1 36/19
dismiss [1] 9/14
dispute [2] 28/8 55/2
distinction [5] 17/12 17/17 44/4 45/14 45/22
distinguish [1] 7/19
employee [12] 6/22 7/4 11/3 11/8 11/11 11/12

11/13 15/19 20/11 40/23 44/23 55/23
distracted [1] 54/11
employees [2] 33/23 39/10
distribution [2] 28/22 29/6
employer [4] 7/2 7/25 14/21 15/22
district [11] 1/1 1/1 3/22 3/22 16/23 40/3 41/4
employment [33] 5/22 6/22 8/14 9/9 9/21 10/3
41/10 56/13 62/4 62/5
10/11 11/14 12/23 12/24 14/25 16/10 17/25 18/1
DIVISION [2] 1/2 35/4
18/2 18/4 18/6 18/18 18/19 19/6 27/18 31/4
divisions [1] 51/20
31/12 32/9 34/14 35/6 40/16 43/8 43/9 52/24
do [23] 5/5 5/24 8/16 11/2 11/15 18/11 19/25
54/13 54/17 60/21
21/22 24/19 33/21 35/18 38/20 38/21 39/19
encourage [2] 46/7 50/19
48/20 49/3 50/14 50/14 54/1 57/4 58/10 58/13
encourages [1] 52/1
62/5
encouraging [4] 24/22 24/24 24/25 50/22
Doc [1] 38/17
end [2] 32/13 33/5
doctor [10] 35/21 36/20 36/20 36/21 38/8 38/17 endo [3] 20/21 20/23 25/17
44/9 44/10 58/13 58/14
endovascular [9] 20/21 33/16 33/19 33/20 33/24
doctors [11] 21/22 25/20 29/9 36/16 36/17 37/11 34/8 34/22 35/4 53/6
50/3 56/17 59/6 59/10 59/17
ends [1] 18/18
document [23] 20/14 23/4 24/16 25/25 33/7
engaged [1] 43/22
34/13 34/20 48/13 49/17 49/17 49/21 49/22
engaging [1] 50/25
49/25 51/5 51/7 51/10 51/14 52/4 56/2 56/4 56/6 engineer [1] 31/8
59/3 60/3
engineers [1] 31/13
documentary [1] 22/11
enough [9] 13/10 15/13 15/15 17/23 18/5 34/11
documents [10] 24/21 28/11 29/3 35/20 35/22
45/25 49/1 56/14
36/5 39/3 50/17 51/9 55/18
entered [1] 18/21
does [11] 10/25 11/11 11/13 12/1 35/10 40/21
entire [2] 12/4 34/6
45/21 54/2 54/15 59/6 60/18
entitled [1] 62/9
doesn't [14] 9/22 14/12 24/8 30/18 36/14 36/23 equivalent [2] 24/5 24/11
36/25 37/4 45/13 45/20 50/25 51/1 56/10 57/20 ES [2] 12/17 34/4
doing [2] 40/12 54/9
essentially [4] 5/19 30/8 39/15 48/4
DOJ [1] 27/3
establish [4] 26/6 45/25 52/25 57/15
don't [14] 4/21 8/4 8/24 10/24 11/1 11/1 21/22 established [5] 26/2 27/16 30/1 30/10 48/14
43/21 46/25 48/25 49/4 53/19 54/16 58/15
establishes [1] 8/5
done [1] 52/7
establishing [1] 42/10
door [4] 4/13 19/8 27/5 37/25
et [2] 22/16 49/24
dots [2] 53/17 54/9
even [15] 7/24 14/11 17/7 18/1 26/21 26/22
down [3] 12/12 13/11 27/6
30/14 34/21 42/18 42/22 43/11 44/17 51/24
Dr [1] 59/10
53/17 59/19
Dr. [6] 25/14 41/11 41/12 41/14 41/17 41/17
events [2] 27/17 28/12
Dr. Burrell [1] 41/17
ever [3] 4/21 19/5 48/5
Dr. Burrell's [1] 41/17
ever-renewing [1] 48/5
Dr. Chatrathi [1] 25/14
every [7] 10/8 11/16 35/7 39/5 39/7 41/19 46/13
Dr. Sack [3] 41/11 41/12 41/14
everything [1] 54/16
draw [2] 45/23 56/5
evidence [33] 5/18 5/24 6/14 8/5 8/8 19/24 20/6
draws [1] 44/4
22/11 23/23 26/3 26/5 26/7 26/12 28/15 29/24
drew [1] 17/11
30/10 30/14 31/6 31/7 32/3 32/11 32/20 32/24
Drs [1] 25/19
34/11 35/5 35/7 35/10 42/13 48/17 52/11 53/23
duct [2] 38/12 55/12
54/12 54/13
during [11] 5/17 5/22 6/19 6/22 8/6 8/7 9/21
Ewald [1] 25/6
12/23 17/3 18/2 18/4
ex [2] 1/4 47/9
exact [6] 18/22 25/15 31/14 31/23 32/10 41/23
E
exactly [1] 16/11
each [1] 13/17
example [7] 11/17 15/11 15/21 16/13 45/15
early [1] 42/20
45/17 55/17
easier [1] 33/8
except [1] 22/23
easiest [1] 10/21
exception [1] 22/21
Eastern [2] 41/4 56/13
exchange [1] 14/4
easy [1] 54/10
Excuse [1] 52/15
effect [2] 15/11 39/18
exemplar [1] 19/24
effectiveness [1] 27/15
experience [6] 9/24 14/8 17/3 17/15 19/10 42/1
efforts [5] 30/20 30/21 48/18 48/19 49/12
experiencing [2] 16/4 45/24
Eighth [2] 40/17 41/22
explain [1] 55/24
either [3] 14/17 39/12 44/24
explanation [1] 54/18
Elan [1] 25/23
export [1] 56/24
eliminate [1] 54/16
extent [3] 5/23 6/18 54/15
Elin [1] 20/10
extra [2] 19/25 47/18
Elite [1] 25/21
extract [1] 14/3
ELIZABETH [1] 3/5
eyes [6] 17/16 36/10 45/10 55/24 56/8 56/11
elizabeth.hess [1] 3/8
F
ELLIS [3] 2/20 3/6 3/9
else [5] 10/25 11/10 46/9 48/20 60/23
f/k/a [1] 1/6
email [5] 20/10 20/14 25/6 28/19 46/5
face [4] 24/15 36/5 45/11 56/6
emails [1] 29/1
facilities [1] 15/3
employ [3] 7/2 7/25 51/12
fact [8] 6/24 10/10 34/11 36/7 41/20 52/1 54/2
employed [1] 51/10
54/4
facts [6] 5/23 5/25 5/25 6/5 44/10 55/24

factual [1] 13/2
Fair [1] 13/10
false [2] 30/12 57/6
familiar [1] 54/6
far [1] 56/22
favor [2] 8/12 25/20
FBI [1] 30/25
FDA [17] 24/21 27/3 27/4 27/10 27/20 27/25
29/21 30/5 30/13 33/21 35/14 37/10 37/12 38/15
41/13 55/5 59/25
February [6] 5/16 6/6 6/20 13/22 58/21 59/1
February 23rd [1] 58/21
FEDERAL [3] 3/21 62/3 62/15
fee [1] 12/18
Feldstein [3] 41/10 41/10 46/4
few [2] 33/4 50/2
field [2] 28/23 53/9
FIERST [2] 2/14 4/18
Fifth [4] 10/14 13/1 15/16 49/9
file [1] 44/22
filed [3] 27/2 47/24 48/8
files [1] 50/17
finance [1] 40/18
find [5] 10/18 31/22 33/11 43/24 56/23
finding [2] 7/2 32/9
finish [1] 4/12
firm [1] 15/9
first [12] 13/20 20/9 20/21 21/6 28/5 31/19
31/21 35/20 43/7 49/11 54/25 58/25
firsthand [19] 10/13 12/23 14/17 15/16 16/2
17/3 19/11 39/6 39/13 40/15 41/2 42/1 43/4 46/8
46/18 56/2 57/1 57/16 58/16
FITZGERALD [12] 2/6 4/17 10/7 11/16 11/19
13/6 13/13 13/21 14/6 19/2 39/8 39/9
five [1] 17/21
flattered [1] 20/25
flip [1] 28/15
floors [1] 13/11
focus [5] 6/9 6/11 13/18 15/16 55/3
focused [2] 19/5 39/2
focusing [1] 31/19
folks [1] 28/2
followed [1] 42/12
following [4] 7/12 27/4 27/13 41/21
Foltz [1] 51/22
force [1] 7/8
foregoing [1] 62/7
form [3] 22/11 45/14 60/12
format [1] 62/9
forth [2] 30/15 47/18
forum [1] 54/10
forward [7] 17/4 17/9 17/11 22/9 25/13 46/1
46/9
Fourth [4] 14/19 14/25 32/1 56/12
fraud [15] 15/2 17/15 17/16 18/15 18/15 36/10
40/15 40/21 40/24 40/24 41/3 42/1 48/7 55/24
56/7
fraudulent [7] 13/14 14/22 40/10 40/12 55/21
56/2 58/18
friend [1] 46/13
front [1] 49/1
fruits [3] 31/1 46/17 48/10
full [1] 47/7
further [1] 34/21
G
Gas [1] 42/7
gave [2] 28/8 41/11
general [1] 7/5
generally [1] 50/21
Genie [1] 29/21
gentleman [2] 32/18 35/2
genuine [1] 34/11
G
GEORGE [1] 3/1
george.bramblett [1] 3/4
Geri [6] 27/21 39/4 41/24 42/4 42/17 55/4
get [11] 4/13 11/1 11/12 24/3 33/23 37/21 51/25
52/13 54/10 55/10 56/17
get-go [1] 33/23
getting [5] 32/7 45/1 45/4 45/5 51/23
give [15] 5/6 5/9 5/24 8/24 8/24 10/17 20/25
26/9 29/17 42/8 46/23 47/7 47/16 52/17 60/11
gives [1] 55/14
giving [1] 58/21
go [19] 8/15 9/4 11/11 11/19 17/4 17/5 17/9
17/11 20/4 20/14 21/20 31/6 33/23 36/2 37/20
44/13 46/1 57/15 59/4
Godbey [4] 7/19 13/6 14/1 39/11
goes [3] 16/3 40/7 57/6
going [44] 9/3 15/10 15/20 16/25 17/1 18/17
20/4 24/4 24/8 28/5 28/17 29/8 33/11 34/3 34/15
34/20 34/21 35/2 35/11 35/17 38/18 40/24 43/10
43/13 46/4 46/6 47/16 47/17 48/22 49/8 53/4
53/6 53/10 53/16 54/22 55/10 56/16 57/13 57/14
59/4 59/19 60/4 60/8 60/10
gone [3] 15/24 15/24 16/7
Gonzales [4] 49/20 54/23 55/17 55/18
good [5] 11/17 16/13 17/18 45/5 59/18
got [16] 14/10 14/18 18/11 36/1 38/5 38/8 38/9
38/10 42/25 43/5 45/17 53/9 55/16 57/18 59/17
59/25
Government [11] 11/9 11/25 12/1 12/2 12/5
12/7 12/19 19/14 29/20 42/8 42/16
grab [1] 8/23
grand [1] 55/15
grant [3] 8/19 60/8 60/17
granted [2] 40/3 57/5
gravamen [1] 12/16
great [1] 50/3
GRENADIER [2] 2/10 4/17
grounds [2] 57/9 57/13
group [1] 28/22
growth [1] 34/4
Grynberg [8] 39/25 40/1 40/7 46/3 46/21 46/22
47/9 49/1
guess [2] 19/18 37/3
Guidant [29] 1/7 5/13 5/15 5/16 5/18 5/21 20/18
22/22 24/2 24/3 25/9 25/16 32/8 34/6 35/4 36/25
42/20 42/20 42/24 42/25 43/10 50/11 50/12
50/18 53/25 53/25 54/7 59/9 59/14
Guidant's [1] 43/5
guide [1] 49/24
H
had [26] 4/9 11/8 12/22 13/6 13/8 14/8 14/8
14/14 15/4 17/8 17/13 18/11 27/16 29/4 30/1
32/3 35/2 35/24 36/12 36/15 39/8 40/4 40/15
41/2 41/10 43/12
hadn't [1] 18/8
Half [1] 39/2
hall [2] 13/7 13/8
HAMILTON [8] 1/14 1/14 1/18 2/6 4/16 4/18
19/21 20/3
hand [1] 44/21
handed [3] 46/10 46/11 46/11
hands [1] 46/3
Hanson [18] 27/21 27/22 28/4 28/7 30/23 39/4
41/24 42/4 42/5 42/17 43/13 47/22 54/23 54/25
55/1 55/4 55/8 55/8
Hanson's [1] 47/21
happen [1] 28/9
happened [11] 6/15 6/17 9/19 11/10 14/10
14/11 26/18 27/10 31/20 51/3 55/3
happening [1] 15/14
happens [1] 15/22
hard [1] 21/13

has [30] 7/24 8/9 9/20 9/23 9/24 10/8 10/9 12/3
12/7 12/10 16/24 19/5 24/5 25/16 25/17 26/2
26/17 27/20 34/6 34/13 35/25 36/11 37/1 39/5
39/7 40/20 41/9 45/25 54/8 55/15
Haskins [4] 16/12 19/1 29/25 30/1
hasn't [1] 19/14
have [78]
haven't [1] 8/17
having [2] 17/15 18/7
HAYNES [1] 3/2
haynesboone.com [1] 3/4
Hays [2] 40/17 40/18
he [120]
he's [8] 7/3 16/3 26/14 36/1 43/23 44/22 46/2
55/16
health [1] 39/10
hear [2] 4/10 4/14
heard [1] 48/20
hearing [4] 1/10 8/11 31/1 56/8
held [8] 7/11 9/16 10/9 14/5 18/19 27/4 55/22
62/8
help [1] 57/20
helped [1] 25/14
helping [1] 25/17
her [13] 7/25 17/2 17/2 17/3 17/6 17/7 20/15
20/18 22/8 39/15 39/18 48/20 48/21
Herc [1] 25/21
here [19] 8/5 15/6 18/10 20/6 21/12 21/21 25/4
25/11 26/1 26/4 29/9 30/6 31/3 31/24 34/19
39/14 48/11 49/19 51/3
here's [10] 15/3 16/19 26/25 27/18 28/10 38/1
38/23 40/24 45/22 53/21
hereby [1] 62/5
HESS [2] 3/5 4/24
Hey [2] 38/4 38/17
hid [1] 12/17
highlighted [2] 20/22 21/13
him [11] 39/19 42/22 44/10 45/20 46/3 52/25
55/8 55/14 57/15 58/2 58/7
himself [3] 10/13 15/21 40/21
his [50] 5/22 6/22 7/2 7/19 9/15 9/21 10/3 12/4
12/23 12/24 15/12 15/13 15/14 15/16 17/25 18/2
18/3 19/15 20/7 28/13 32/8 32/15 33/6 35/9
36/22 40/11 40/16 42/6 42/22 42/25 43/6 43/7
43/8 43/9 45/10 45/21 46/17 48/10 48/18 49/11
51/8 52/24 53/24 54/13 54/14 54/17 55/24 56/23
57/1 57/15
his original [1] 57/1
historically [1] 54/6
history [1] 57/3
hit [1] 54/23
hold [2] 46/19 57/22
holding [1] 60/18
holds [1] 7/20
home [1] 8/15
HON [1] 3/21
honest [1] 49/5
Honor [34] 4/19 4/25 9/2 9/13 9/16 10/5 15/6
19/20 19/22 19/23 20/3 22/18 22/24 23/15 32/22
32/23 33/1 35/16 35/17 36/11 38/23 39/5 39/25
44/3 44/20 45/23 47/13 47/15 47/20 49/6 54/19
54/22 60/24 60/25
Honor's [3] 9/19 15/11 36/7
HONORABLE [1] 1/11
hospital [4] 16/3 27/11 55/10 55/11
hospitals [8] 25/24 27/14 29/12 30/11 51/13
51/19 51/20 55/5
how [7] 10/8 13/4 29/10 29/13 42/2 45/7 55/24
huge [1] 23/21
huh [1] 37/23
hypothetical [1] 9/19
hypothetically [1] 10/24
I
I'll [9] 4/14 10/7 11/19 19/18 20/14 34/18 37/20
57/4 60/11
I'm [29] 5/24 5/25 7/2 7/12 8/16 8/22 8/23 8/25
9/3 10/20 10/24 11/16 20/4 20/25 22/14 23/12
23/24 33/12 40/25 43/13 45/2 45/18 47/16 48/25
52/15 54/22 56/7 60/8 60/10
I've [7] 4/21 7/11 20/22 21/3 21/5 21/13 47/18
IC [1] 22/21
identified [8] 20/17 24/21 25/16 25/24 32/14
34/24 42/14 42/18
identifies [3] 6/22 50/1 50/18
identifying [3] 50/4 53/5 53/6
if [67]
ignition [2] 10/23 11/4
iliac [4] 37/15 38/18 38/19 59/21
iliac-indicated [2] 37/15 38/19
ILLINOIS [3] 2/21 3/7 3/10
illustrate [1] 6/21
immediately [2] 8/11 34/16
impermissible [1] 51/17
implant [1] 29/10
important [15] 13/16 16/20 21/2 21/5 26/16
26/20 29/7 29/24 30/6 36/18 38/23 42/5 42/8
42/25 43/16
impose [1] 30/7
imposed [1] 53/19
improper [1] 50/15
in [226]
INC [2] 1/8 47/10
inclined [3] 8/12 8/23 8/25
included [2] 42/18 42/22
including [4] 10/6 27/6 31/7 50/17
inconsistent [3] 24/23 25/2 50/23
increases [1] 52/1
independent [22] 6/10 6/12 10/12 11/8 15/1
16/9 26/17 28/14 30/16 30/18 32/4 35/9 35/11
48/5 48/15 48/17 49/14 52/23 53/17 54/14 58/22
60/19
indicated [13] 27/10 36/12 36/18 37/13 37/14
37/15 38/8 38/9 38/10 38/11 38/19 55/12 59/22
indication [2] 24/16 24/19
indicative [1] 36/8
individual [3] 27/21 40/20 54/8
individuals [1] 39/12
industry [4] 15/7 15/22 27/6 39/11
inference [1] 26/9
inferences [1] 56/8
information [15] 7/4 8/8 16/9 29/18 31/4 39/6
39/11 40/20 41/5 41/7 41/8 41/14 41/16 41/23
41/24
initial [1] 32/15
insider [1] 55/23
instant [1] 50/7
Instead [1] 40/14
instruction [1] 13/1
instructions [1] 38/22
insufficient [1] 56/18
intended [2] 20/5 42/2
intent [3] 30/3 30/4 31/5
interest [3] 36/22 38/1 59/13
intermediary [1] 41/7
internal [1] 46/3
interpretation [2] 26/23 30/15
interpreted [1] 42/3
intervene [1] 12/1
intervened [2] 12/8 19/15
intervenes [2] 11/25 12/2
intervening [2] 46/6 46/16
interventional [2] 21/17 22/21
into [4] 12/21 18/21 52/4 53/9
intravascular [1] 29/15
investigation [2] 31/2 48/10
label [59] 6/1 6/6 7/5 8/2 21/10 21/11 22/1 22/5
24/22 24/23 25/3 25/3 26/10 27/7 27/8 29/11
investigator [1] 30/25
32/9 32/11 32/20 34/12 36/6 36/20 36/23 37/5
investigator's [1] 31/2
37/7 37/17 37/24 38/6 38/14 38/15 38/20 43/16
involved [5] 7/21 7/21 14/7 24/3 29/9
43/22 43/24 44/5 44/12 50/15 50/22 50/24 50/25
involvement [1] 9/23
51/2 51/16 52/11 52/14 53/8 53/11 54/6 55/6
involving [3] 11/1 15/2 29/16
56/18 58/8 59/5 59/7 59/16 59/20 59/23 59/24
irrigation [1] 12/22
59/25 60/2 60/4
is [206]
labor [1] 46/17
isn't [3] 16/6 41/18 56/13
LABORATORIES [1] 1/6
isolation [2] 35/8 54/11
large [1] 14/4
issue [23] 4/5 6/10 7/16 10/6 10/9 11/23 11/24
LASALLE [3] 2/20 3/6 3/10
13/5 13/19 18/24 19/5 26/24 31/15 31/17 34/11 last [5] 25/8 38/7 47/17 54/21 57/24
38/24 38/24 49/3 49/16 55/9 57/21 60/21 60/21 lasted [1] 13/14
issues [6] 5/7 5/10 10/6 34/12 42/24 60/10
later [2] 18/25 60/14
it [110]
law [22] 6/4 7/2 13/5 15/8 15/9 20/1 26/22 26/23
it's [46] 5/12 7/16 10/14 10/21 11/17 11/18
30/15 32/5 36/9 37/8 39/21 39/25 44/20 46/15
11/23 11/24 13/16 15/12 18/22 21/1 24/7 26/19
46/16 50/14 53/1 56/18 57/25 60/13
26/20 29/24 30/9 31/14 35/8 36/22 37/4 37/13
lawsuit [3] 11/6 47/24 48/8
37/14 37/14 38/18 40/11 42/8 43/1 45/9 45/19
leadership [3] 33/15 33/23 34/8
46/17 46/17 47/1 47/2 48/4 48/19 48/20 48/21
leaning [1] 8/22
49/12 52/3 54/10 55/25 57/21 57/25 57/25 59/21 leap [2] 23/21 43/24
item [2] 20/21 35/7
learned [5] 18/4 39/9 41/14 53/15 54/16
items [4] 26/7 34/2 49/5 54/18
learns [1] 39/17
its [7] 12/5 13/19 14/3 15/2 27/14 51/7 53/23
least [4] 13/15 13/24 17/13 60/15
itself [3] 9/25 45/15 54/2
leaves [5] 6/25 7/1 9/22 11/4 15/19
ledger [1] 19/4
J
left [12] 5/21 6/18 7/12 7/24 9/11 13/21 14/18
Jacobs [1] 59/10
14/21 14/23 17/22 18/12 26/18
Jersey [2] 16/23 41/10
legally [1] 59/15
Jim [2] 32/16 40/1
lens [2] 35/8 53/14
JOHNSON [4] 3/20 62/3 62/14 62/14
less [3] 6/16 58/17 60/5
joined [1] 6/15
let [7] 5/4 16/14 44/13 50/13 57/15 58/19 58/20
JR [1] 3/1
let's [8] 10/22 28/6 37/2 37/20 37/20 37/21
Judge [4] 7/19 13/6 14/1 39/11
43/14 55/3
judgment [8] 4/6 17/13 31/21 32/2 40/4 52/22
letter [8] 27/14 27/25 28/17 28/21 28/23 33/18
57/5 60/18
55/5 55/11
Judicial [1] 62/10
leverage [1] 14/3
June [8] 5/16 5/17 5/20 5/20 6/7 8/3 9/11 39/2
lifted [1] 31/13
jurisdiction [5] 11/23 11/24 12/9 18/5 48/6
light [3] 29/8 52/6 52/11
jury [6] 4/8 17/1 17/6 31/20 56/22 57/15
like [14] 5/4 8/15 8/20 20/4 20/5 20/9 34/22 38/2
just [23] 8/16 9/4 11/5 11/23 19/8 19/15 20/24
38/5 38/13 41/23 46/5 56/4 59/19
21/18 30/3 31/10 33/7 35/17 35/21 36/24 39/3
likelihood [1] 52/1
43/14 44/13 45/13 46/5 47/4 55/3 59/20 60/12
likes [2] 37/21 50/10
limited [5] 8/9 12/9 17/1 38/24 56/22
K
line [2] 10/11 16/7
KASSOF [5] 2/19 4/23 5/1 9/7 47/16
list [7] 21/8 21/14 21/15 28/23 42/17 42/21
keeping [2] 11/5 34/6
49/18
keeps [1] 11/5
listed [1] 47/22
KEITH [4] 3/20 62/3 62/14 62/14
lists [2] 25/19 29/14
kept [1] 18/17
litany [1] 52/8
KEVIN [1] 1/4
little [3] 4/15 5/9 26/25
key [8] 15/3 25/4 33/17 34/3 45/12 51/6 53/21
LLP [10] 1/14 1/18 2/2 2/6 2/11 2/15 2/20 3/2
56/9
3/6 3/9
kickback [2] 13/24 18/23
Loftiss [20] 35/2 35/3 41/24 42/19 43/11 43/12
kickbacks [1] 14/3
43/15 43/21 44/4 44/8 53/20 53/24 54/3 54/23
kidding [1] 8/16
57/24 58/1 58/4 58/13 58/14 58/15
kind [6] 7/17 8/21 11/18 36/6 44/8 58/17
logical [1] 23/21
KIRKLAND [3] 2/20 3/6 3/9
long [1] 17/21
kirkland.com [3] 2/22 3/8 3/11
long-running [1] 17/21
knew [6] 9/20 35/23 38/25 43/9 53/7 53/25
longer [3] 4/11 7/4 16/8
knock [2] 4/13 37/25
look [10] 9/18 12/12 13/2 13/16 21/14 22/15
know [18] 10/24 16/25 35/24 37/21 38/4 40/24
43/13 46/4 57/24 58/1
44/11 45/3 50/13 51/8 51/12 51/15 51/18 54/5
looked [4] 12/25 13/4 14/1 35/8
58/3 58/10 58/13 58/15
looking [3] 53/1 56/6 56/6
knowing [1] 36/7
looks [1] 45/11
knowingly [1] 12/17
Lord [1] 45/5
knowledgable [1] 45/23
Louisiana [2] 41/5 56/13
knowledge [98]
LYNN [2] 1/11 3/21
known [1] 28/13
M
knows [6] 8/5 8/6 9/24 11/3 29/21 39/18
Koerner [4] 41/4 41/5 41/6 41/9
ma'am [3] 5/14 16/11 47/5
made [8] 10/23 17/5 18/8 28/9 31/23 31/23
L
43/19 43/22
lab [3] 28/2 28/17 28/24
maintain [2] 10/3 48/6

major [1] 11/4
majority [1] 50/4
make [8] 8/24 17/24 23/12 30/5 45/13 45/20
51/7 53/22
making [7] 22/14 25/9 34/7 44/2 45/2 50/6
54/15
management [2] 55/5 55/9
manager [7] 28/2 28/2 28/3 28/5 28/6 28/17
28/25
managers [5] 27/12 27/24 28/20 28/22 29/5
manner [2] 24/23 50/23
manufacture's [1] 11/4
manufacturer [1] 10/23
manufacturing [2] 6/24 7/1
many [2] 33/21 45/6
March [4] 14/21 14/23 15/3 27/4
market [4] 34/1 59/5 59/9 59/15
marketing [4] 25/15 32/9 32/15 32/17
MARTIN [3] 1/18 4/17 33/11
material [3] 7/14 34/11 42/10
materials [5] 28/2 28/18 28/24 34/19 41/13
matter [13] 6/4 6/23 9/3 11/24 12/9 15/19 44/20
48/6 50/25 51/1 56/18 57/25 62/9
may [5] 4/15 19/23 25/12 28/25 32/23
May 2006 [1] 25/12
maybe [1] 54/23
me [32] 5/4 5/18 5/24 5/24 5/24 6/14 7/16 8/18
8/19 9/8 10/17 10/22 16/14 21/1 21/4 23/23
25/17 32/19 40/10 40/11 41/11 45/13 45/17
46/23 47/7 48/24 49/2 52/15 52/17 54/24 58/19
58/20
MEAGAN [1] 1/18
mean [4] 23/11 24/8 45/15 46/10
meaning [2] 22/3 45/8
means [3] 22/16 33/20 56/17
meat [1] 56/23
MECHANICAL [1] 3/15
medical [1] 59/13
Medicare [2] 29/14 29/17
medicine [2] 15/5 37/13
meet [1] 30/18
meeting [5] 27/5 27/13 27/20 28/1 55/6
member [1] 18/20
memo [18] 11/12 44/22 44/25 45/1 45/10 45/11
45/11 45/15 45/15 45/21 45/25 45/25 46/3 46/10
46/11 46/11 46/11 46/12
memos [1] 45/18
mention [1] 47/21
mere [1] 56/13
merely [6] 7/4 21/7 21/10 24/10 37/5 41/8
merger [10] 20/7 20/8 20/12 20/15 20/17 22/12
25/7 25/12 32/17 39/1
merits [4] 57/5 57/8 57/12 57/14
MERYL [1] 2/10
met [2] 4/22 27/3
mgrenadier [1] 2/13
Michael [2] 41/6 41/7
might [3] 8/21 15/24 33/5
mind [1] 34/6
mini [1] 5/9
mini-summary [1] 5/9
minimal [1] 53/13
minute [2] 20/24 44/14
missing [2] 23/12 33/5
MITCHELL [3] 2/2 2/10 2/15
mmartin [1] 1/21
MMC [1] 51/15
modifiers [1] 29/17
month [1] 8/7
months [4] 13/13 13/23 14/10 27/3
more [8] 6/21 10/25 21/2 21/5 34/10 51/4 55/16
59/11
morning [1] 28/20
none [2] 21/17 36/18

nonetheless [1] 10/1
most [1] 56/3
NORTHERN [3] 1/1 3/22 62/5
motion [8] 4/6 6/3 9/14 13/15 13/20 38/24 60/8 not [73]
60/17
nothing [6] 9/24 36/5 39/1 43/10 55/16 59/3
MOTIONS [1] 1/10
notion [2] 6/13 6/16
movant [2] 9/1 47/17
Novation [3] 13/22 14/2 39/9
move [2] 4/14 34/18
Novation's [1] 13/25
moving [4] 22/9 25/13 25/19 49/16
now [13] 4/11 9/6 13/23 25/12 26/16 31/15
MR [74]
31/22 32/14 44/13 46/12 48/22 49/2 49/16
Mr. [33] 4/16 4/17 4/18 4/18 4/23 4/24 4/24 5/1 number [5] 4/7 28/16 31/7 33/15 34/5
12/16 19/21 22/10 27/18 27/20 27/23 28/4 31/24 Number 6-1769 [1] 4/7
34/14 35/3 40/9 40/18 43/11 43/15 43/21 44/4
numbers [1] 33/10
44/8 46/2 47/16 51/22 53/20 53/24 58/1 58/4
NW [3] 2/3 2/11 2/16
58/13
O
Mr. Bahrani [1] 31/24
Mr. Beato [1] 4/17
oath [2] 10/1 36/1
Mr. Bramblett [1] 4/24
observation [6] 16/2 17/7 17/15 19/7 19/10 56/3
observe [1] 41/25
Mr. Colquitt [3] 27/20 27/23 28/4
Mr. Colquitt's [3] 22/10 27/18 34/14
observing [2] 15/21 45/24
Mr. Fierst [1] 4/18
obtained [8] 28/11 28/14 30/20 39/12 41/5 41/7
Mr. Foltz [1] 51/22
48/18 49/11
obtains [1] 40/19
Mr. Hamilton [3] 4/16 4/18 19/21
Mr. Hays [1] 40/18
obviously [1] 51/3
Mr. Kassof [3] 4/23 5/1 47/16
occur [1] 27/17
Mr. Loftiss [11] 35/3 43/11 43/15 43/21 44/4
occurred [3] 7/11 12/24 47/23
occurring [2] 26/10 26/19
44/8 53/20 53/24 58/1 58/4 58/13
Mr. Nielsen [2] 40/9 46/2
occurs [1] 15/20
Mr. Siegfried [1] 4/24
off [61] 6/1 6/6 7/3 7/5 8/2 9/4 9/5 11/6 21/10
Mr. Stone's [1] 12/16
21/11 22/5 24/22 25/3 26/10 27/7 27/8 29/11
MS [6] 1/18 2/6 2/10 3/5 25/6 27/22
30/7 32/9 32/11 32/20 34/12 35/20 36/6 36/20
Ms. [21] 4/17 4/17 4/17 4/24 13/13 14/6 20/13
36/23 37/5 37/7 37/17 37/24 38/6 38/14 38/15
20/18 22/8 23/17 28/4 28/7 30/23 33/11 39/9
38/20 39/22 43/16 43/22 43/24 44/5 44/12 50/15
42/5 42/17 47/21 47/22 49/17 55/1
50/22 50/25 51/2 51/16 52/11 52/14 53/8 53/11
Ms. Fitzgerald [4] 4/17 13/13 14/6 39/9
54/6 54/25 56/18 58/8 59/5 59/7 59/16 59/19
Ms. Geri [1] 42/17
59/23 59/24 60/2 60/4
Ms. Grenadier [1] 4/17
off-label [41] 6/1 6/6 7/5 8/2 21/10 21/11 22/5
Ms. Hanson [6] 28/4 28/7 30/23 42/5 47/22 55/1 24/22 25/3 26/10 27/7 27/8 32/9 32/11 34/12
Ms. Hanson's [1] 47/21
36/6 36/20 36/23 37/5 37/7 37/17 37/24 38/6
Ms. Hess [1] 4/24
38/14 38/15 38/20 43/16 43/22 43/24 44/5 44/12
Ms. Martin [2] 4/17 33/11
50/15 50/22 50/25 51/2 51/16 52/11 52/14 59/7
Ms. Williams [4] 20/13 20/18 22/8 49/17
59/16 60/4
Ms. Williams' [1] 23/17
off-label promotion [1] 59/24
much [6] 8/6 8/7 38/19 54/20 58/17 60/4
officer [2] 40/3 40/5
multiple [1] 33/16
OFFICIAL [4] 3/21 62/1 62/3 62/15
MUSE [3] 2/2 2/10 2/15
often [1] 51/2
must [1] 56/17
Oh [1] 56/15
my [17] 5/12 6/11 8/17 17/15 18/13 20/1 20/4
okay [24] 8/17 9/1 9/18 12/12 13/4 14/2 19/17
25/20 27/9 40/8 45/15 49/5 50/7 51/5 56/7 57/4 20/24 22/13 23/1 23/5 23/11 28/23 33/3 33/9
60/14
33/11 33/13 38/3 39/3 43/12 44/1 47/11 54/20
61/1
N
Oklahoma [2] 44/7 58/6
name [1] 47/7
on [84]
named [2] 27/21 35/2
once [7] 15/19 15/24 16/7 24/3 37/10 48/8 53/8
Natural [1] 42/7
one [33] 7/21 7/23 10/18 11/25 11/25 14/14
nature [2] 15/23 29/8
16/12 16/15 16/24 17/12 17/18 19/4 19/25 21/2
need [8] 13/2 29/22 36/9 36/10 41/25 44/11
21/5 21/6 21/7 21/12 21/13 21/16 24/14 25/15
56/11 57/24
25/24 30/1 33/6 33/17 38/5 41/19 42/5 42/17
needs [6] 10/10 10/11 10/12 10/13 15/15 48/4
51/4 52/21 57/25
negotiated [1] 18/21
ones [3] 14/15 36/16 39/4
Neupert [1] 32/16
ongoing [5] 12/19 13/5 14/22 16/21 18/22
never [6] 28/12 35/23 35/23 44/8 58/15 59/1
ongoings [1] 9/25
new [5] 11/14 16/23 34/20 41/10 43/2
only [11] 15/15 16/12 17/4 37/1 38/11 52/4 54/4
next [9] 20/14 21/24 25/5 25/6 28/16 29/4 60/11 54/11 55/9 55/12 56/8
60/14 60/15
opening [1] 4/3
Nielsen [5] 40/1 40/2 40/9 40/14 46/2
operate [1] 5/19
Nielsen's [1] 40/3
operated [1] 5/18
Ninth [3] 40/22 41/1 41/21
operating [2] 40/3 40/5
no [45] 1/5 7/4 9/23 9/24 10/9 10/10 15/19 16/8 operative [2] 37/1 37/3
16/24 18/16 19/9 19/11 22/24 23/15 26/5 32/12 opinion [6] 9/14 18/2 29/25 31/19 31/21 60/14
34/6 35/6 35/24 36/1 36/19 38/17 40/13 41/1
opponents [1] 16/6
41/6 41/9 41/13 43/4 44/25 45/8 45/8 48/13 51/6 opposed [6] 21/11 22/4 29/25 30/21 48/18 49/12
51/24 52/16 53/20 53/22 54/5 55/13 57/11 57/18 or [36] 4/11 5/8 8/15 11/12 14/18 15/2 15/11
58/9 58/12 60/24 62/15
15/21 19/7 19/7 24/2 24/3 24/12 24/25 25/1 32/1
35/6 37/8 37/10 41/24 43/12 45/18 46/10 46/11

46/13 49/11 50/10 50/11 50/12 50/14 50/20
50/23 52/1 58/14 59/22 60/2
or orally [1] 60/2
oral [1] 4/4
orally [1] 60/2
order [5] 12/18 20/5 29/21 35/17 48/6
original [31] 4/5 6/5 6/7 6/8 6/15 6/17 6/19 7/3
7/13 7/23 7/24 9/10 10/4 12/16 13/20 15/25 16/8
41/17 42/11 44/18 44/23 45/20 52/25 55/19
55/22 56/1 56/23 57/1 57/9 57/18 60/18
originally [1] 28/16
other [24] 7/21 7/24 10/9 11/20 14/12 14/13
14/15 14/16 16/16 17/4 19/1 19/1 19/2 19/3
19/19 37/9 39/3 39/9 42/4 42/5 44/21 51/9 54/18
60/10
others [8] 8/10 13/25 27/5 27/11 30/21 39/10
48/19 49/12
Otherwise [1] 10/15
ought [1] 11/20
our [7] 28/21 32/5 37/22 38/1 41/24 43/1 59/18
ours [1] 37/6
ourselves [1] 31/22
out [17] 4/8 10/9 16/18 19/1 19/1 19/2 19/2 19/8
20/4 21/3 21/6 21/6 23/8 27/25 37/20 59/4 59/5
outcome [1] 60/12
outlier [1] 57/21
outside [3] 17/7 42/13 42/13
over [12] 5/16 9/10 12/9 12/10 14/6 14/14 14/15
14/16 18/5 36/17 48/7 57/19
own [17] 15/12 15/14 15/14 17/15 24/11 27/14
36/10 42/25 45/10 46/17 49/11 51/7 53/23 55/24
56/7 56/11 57/15
P
page [2] 22/16 27/7
pages [1] 33/4
paragraph [1] 13/20
paralegal [3] 16/13 16/21 16/22
Pardon [1] 21/4
part [8] 8/23 20/16 23/8 28/22 39/15 39/19
39/22 48/21
partial [1] 8/17
participant [2] 30/24 48/12
participated [1] 16/20
participating [1] 39/16
participation [2] 16/25 19/7
particular [7] 21/23 34/17 49/3 49/4 49/17 49/22
51/6
particulars [1] 10/25
parts [2] 12/13 12/22
party [1] 51/16
passed [1] 48/19
passed-along [1] 48/19
passing [1] 39/18
past [1] 16/10
patient [2] 36/22 36/23
patients' [1] 59/12
PAUL [3] 1/15 1/19 2/7
pause [3] 16/14 21/19 22/19
people [5] 5/23 42/14 42/18 42/22 55/7
percent [3] 53/8 53/10 54/5
percentage [1] 12/4
perform [1] 38/18
performed [1] 21/17
performing [1] 51/21
period [25] 5/15 5/17 5/20 5/21 5/22 6/20 8/6
8/7 9/9 9/21 12/4 17/2 17/6 27/3 34/15 35/13
37/1 37/3 39/2 43/8 53/16 54/13 54/17 60/9
60/20
periods [5] 16/16 19/19 43/9 53/18 60/5
peripheral [3] 31/10 37/15 59/7
permissible [1] 44/5
person [7] 39/6 40/19 41/12 42/19 44/17 44/17
P
person... [1] 55/10
personal [11] 9/4 9/23 13/23 16/2 19/10 42/15
43/4 46/8 56/3 57/2 58/17
personally [6] 14/7 17/14 41/12 41/25 45/23
55/20
persons [1] 42/15
phase [2] 31/21 32/3
physical [1] 46/3
physician [4] 24/22 25/15 29/11 33/21
physicians [14] 21/16 21/25 23/6 24/6 24/17
29/10 30/11 32/11 49/23 51/10 51/15 51/16 52/8
52/12
physicians that [1] 21/25
pick [1] 52/13
piece [10] 25/4 26/5 26/16 26/20 30/6 31/3 38/7
48/17 53/23 54/8
pieces [2] 26/7 48/9
place [1] 25/23
placed [1] 26/8
placement [1] 29/14
places [1] 53/19
plaintiff [2] 1/5 4/16
plan [5] 21/15 22/6 23/17 25/12 56/5
play [2] 25/20 27/19
please [4] 21/7 21/13 25/8 47/8
pled [2] 29/20 31/25
point [20] 7/15 9/13 11/20 18/13 20/9 22/14
23/12 23/12 23/13 23/15 26/4 38/23 43/19 44/2
49/18 50/6 51/6 54/25 56/20 57/24
pointed [2] 16/18 21/6
points [1] 42/5
pondcrete [1] 12/24
position [9] 7/7 15/10 15/18 16/5 32/5 37/24
44/16 44/23 48/24
positioned [2] 33/15 34/7
positions [1] 5/11
possess [1] 40/21
possession [1] 26/13
possible [2] 4/10 4/11
possibly [1] 39/21
post [19] 8/14 9/9 10/3 11/14 14/25 16/24 17/25
18/1 18/6 18/19 19/6 19/7 19/7 25/12 27/18 31/4
31/12 35/6 60/21
post-employment [14] 8/14 9/9 11/14 14/25
17/25 18/1 18/6 18/19 19/6 27/18 31/4 31/12
35/6 60/21
post-merger [1] 25/12
post-observation [1] 19/7
post-participation [1] 19/7
potential [2] 39/18 39/21
power [1] 56/5
PowerPoint [7] 19/23 32/19 33/15 50/18 53/4
53/15 58/21
PowerPoints [1] 32/15
practice [7] 25/16 29/12 34/1 37/13 51/17 51/20
52/9
practices [7] 22/12 23/3 26/13 26/15 51/9 54/7
55/20
practicing [1] 15/4
Praxair [1] 47/10
Precisely [1] 44/3
prediction [2] 6/22 15/14
predictions [1] 56/10
preemployment [9] 8/13 31/16 31/17 35/7 52/18
52/19 58/22 60/9 60/19
preferred [1] 36/17
preliminarily [1] 5/5
premerger [3] 20/10 20/16 22/6
premise [1] 49/9
prepared [2] 20/15 27/10
prescribed [1] 19/13
present [2] 13/15 13/24
presented [2] 32/15 33/6

presents [1] 55/23
president [5] 40/2 40/5 40/9 51/22 51/22
prevail [1] 26/24
previously [1] 4/9
principally [1] 52/20
principle [1] 53/3
prior [8] 20/7 20/15 22/12 25/24 29/3 34/14 53/9
60/5
privilege [1] 9/4
probably [3] 45/18 51/4 60/12
problem [5] 28/6 28/10 48/2 49/25 52/16
problems [1] 5/10
procedural [1] 57/3
procedure [2] 25/22 29/16
procedures [7] 21/22 24/2 29/13 50/10 51/21
54/3 59/7
proceed [1] 32/5
proceedings [5] 3/15 21/19 22/19 61/2 62/8
process [1] 29/22
produced [3] 3/15 23/18 29/2
product [16] 23/9 24/5 24/11 24/23 24/23 24/25
25/1 25/2 36/21 37/12 50/20 50/23 51/25 51/25
52/2 53/8
production [1] 29/3
products [26] 21/23 21/25 22/22 22/23 22/25
23/13 23/16 23/18 24/16 24/18 24/20 31/9 31/10
34/25 37/10 50/1 50/3 51/24 52/13 53/11 54/5
54/7 59/5 59/15 59/18 59/18
program [7] 16/14 16/21 16/22 16/23 16/25 17/3
17/8
programs [3] 7/8 32/10 34/23
promised [1] 30/5
promote [5] 34/24 54/7 59/4 59/20 60/2
promoted [1] 24/2
promoting [5] 24/9 49/23 51/1 56/18 58/7
promotion [41] 6/2 6/6 7/5 7/9 8/2 21/11 22/4
24/22 24/24 25/3 27/7 27/8 29/8 32/12 32/20
34/12 36/4 36/6 36/20 36/23 37/5 37/7 37/25
38/6 38/15 38/16 38/20 43/17 43/23 43/24 44/5
44/9 44/12 50/15 50/19 50/20 50/22 51/1 52/12
59/24 60/4
promotional [1] 26/10
prong [2] 49/11 49/13
pronunciation [1] 5/13
proof [2] 50/14 50/16
proposed [1] 26/23
prosecuting [1] 15/9
prove [4] 11/13 12/5 52/5 54/4
provide [1] 25/5
provided [2] 26/14 54/17
provisions [1] 55/22
public [4] 11/22 12/3 12/7 19/14
publicly [1] 28/12
pull [1] 32/21
purchase [4] 24/25 25/1 50/20 50/23
purpose [1] 46/7
purposes [3] 42/9 42/10 44/11
pursuant [1] 62/6
pursue [1] 50/7
push [1] 59/23
put [5] 29/21 30/15 52/6 53/14 55/2
reaction [1] 50/7

read [9] 10/8 18/9 18/9 18/11 18/20 18/25 20/25
33/8 44/22
reaffirming [1] 27/15
Reagan [3] 13/1 30/22 49/9
really [4] 8/6 16/13 18/10 21/1
Realtime [1] 62/4
reason [7] 21/8 26/21 29/7 35/24 42/24 47/23
47/25
reasonable [2] 12/13 26/9
reasonably [3] 12/13 12/25 56/23
recall [1] 34/16
recapitulate [1] 5/5
received [3] 23/4 33/18 39/6
receiving [1] 12/18
recipient [1] 41/8
recognize [2] 10/20 59/6
recognized [2] 9/14 9/17
recognizes [1] 59/5
recognizing [2] 59/9 59/14
recollection [1] 49/5
reconsideration [1] 29/25
record [6] 9/4 9/5 9/6 18/7 32/25 33/2
recover [1] 12/3
recovery [2] 11/7 12/4
Reed [2] 25/23 25/23
reference [5] 33/9 34/23 49/22 53/13 53/15
referenced [1] 23/7
references [1] 23/9
referral [1] 34/2
referring [5] 20/21 25/14 29/11 34/17 46/21
reflect [1] 34/19
reflected [2] 20/15 45/24
reflecting [2] 22/6 31/5
reflects [2] 26/18 45/15
regard [6] 26/13 32/10 34/12 47/20 53/5 53/20
regarding [1] 14/12
regulate [1] 37/12
regulations [1] 62/10
regulatory [2] 37/8 50/18
rehearing [2] 16/18 16/19
reimbursement [1] 34/1
reject [1] 57/22
rejected [7] 14/25 32/2 39/7 41/1 42/13 46/5
56/25
rejects [1] 18/18
rel [2] 1/4 47/9
related [4] 6/8 11/7 20/6 22/11
relating [1] 34/14
relative [1] 46/13
relator [31] 1/14 7/20 11/6 12/3 12/14 14/6
14/20 14/23 15/1 15/4 16/16 16/24 17/4 17/19
17/24 18/7 18/8 18/12 18/17 19/15 20/3 39/22
40/1 40/7 40/14 41/14 41/25 48/4 48/8 55/19
55/25
relator's [4] 12/9 12/10 12/15 17/10
relators [4] 16/14 16/20 17/12 30/1
relaunch [1] 25/21
rely [1] 42/9
remains [1] 6/1
remember [2] 46/25 48/25
reminding [2] 55/6 55/11
remove [2] 28/25 29/5
Q
renal [3] 25/22 37/16 59/22
question [6] 30/20 32/12 35/25 48/9 49/10 54/14 renals [1] 25/20
questions [1] 36/7
renewing [1] 48/5
quickly [1] 35/18
rep [2] 27/22 38/14
quite [1] 16/6
reply [1] 19/18
quote [3] 18/2 55/19 55/23
reported [2] 3/15 62/8
quotes [2] 25/11 25/14
REPORTER [4] 3/21 62/1 62/4 62/15
representatives [1] 51/13
R
reps [5] 38/21 38/22 53/5 53/25 59/17
RDR [3] 3/20 62/3 62/14
requested [1] 25/17
Re [1] 42/7
require [1] 36/23
R
required [3] 17/24 27/1 29/17
requirement [8] 26/5 30/19 35/6 46/15 51/6
53/18 53/21 53/22
requires [1] 55/23
respect [6] 15/2 42/24 43/5 43/11 57/12 57/20
respond [1] 49/3
response [2] 16/7 18/10
responsible [1] 41/12
responsive [1] 18/10
result [2] 40/15 48/10
reveals [1] 45/11
reversing [2] 57/12 57/14
reviewed [1] 51/11
reviewing [2] 48/13 49/20
right [27] 4/4 4/16 4/20 4/21 4/23 5/1 5/4 8/22
9/8 15/18 16/11 19/25 21/6 21/20 22/15 22/20
33/13 35/15 46/20 47/12 47/14 49/7 49/15 54/21
57/3 58/19 60/6
rise [1] 26/9
risk [8] 27/11 28/3 28/5 28/6 28/17 28/22 28/25
29/5
Rockwall [1] 15/15
Rockwell [10] 6/23 9/16 10/16 12/12 12/14
12/15 12/17 12/20 13/17 56/10
room [3] 3/23 8/1 62/16
rule [4] 8/11 8/12 17/10 42/12
ruled [1] 41/22
ruling [1] 8/17
running [2] 13/24 17/21
S
Sack [3] 41/11 41/12 41/14
safety [1] 27/15
said [47] 12/12 13/21 14/2 14/11 14/24 16/5
16/6 16/17 16/24 17/5 17/16 17/22 18/7 19/8
28/4 32/2 33/21 39/11 40/4 40/13 40/19 40/24
41/1 41/6 41/11 41/13 41/17 41/20 41/23 42/7
43/15 44/4 44/8 47/10 52/22 55/1 55/3 55/4 55/8
55/8 56/19 56/19 56/21 57/10 57/11 58/5 58/15
sales [15] 7/8 7/9 27/22 34/4 34/15 34/21 38/14
38/21 38/22 44/9 51/13 53/6 53/16 58/10 59/17
sales growth [1] 34/4
same [25] 6/18 7/16 7/17 7/17 11/7 11/17 13/21
15/6 15/11 18/23 19/8 25/15 26/1 26/13 31/14
31/23 32/10 32/17 33/7 40/17 41/16 41/23 42/12
45/21 50/8
Sampson [2] 41/6 41/8
saw [6] 35/23 39/3 55/24 56/2 58/25 59/1
say [19] 9/18 11/15 11/17 13/4 17/14 22/13
22/23 30/25 36/14 37/5 37/20 38/4 38/7 38/15
39/24 43/19 46/6 50/3 58/4
saying [6] 10/22 14/25 27/8 28/8 48/20 51/24
says [33] 7/2 10/18 13/2 13/17 15/13 15/15
15/17 20/21 20/22 21/7 23/9 25/8 25/22 36/21
37/2 37/20 37/25 38/2 38/12 38/14 43/23 44/25
45/1 45/17 45/21 46/3 46/12 46/15 46/16 50/1
56/10 56/13 57/18
scenarios [1] 11/25
scheduled [1] 4/4
scheme [29] 10/2 12/19 13/14 13/24 14/2 14/20
14/22 16/21 17/19 17/21 17/23 18/22 18/24 19/9
31/5 31/8 31/14 32/13 34/5 39/16 39/20 40/10
40/12 48/4 48/12 55/15 57/23 58/18 59/16
schemes [2] 29/19 51/2
school [1] 15/8
Scientific [6] 23/10 24/12 24/14 36/12 36/15
50/12
scope [1] 53/1
screaming [1] 59/11
second [9] 9/4 10/7 16/15 21/7 21/18 41/21
49/13 53/4 59/3
secondhand [11] 39/11 39/12 40/6 40/8 40/14
40/19 41/2 41/15 41/24 44/18 57/25

Sections [1] 62/6
see [23] 5/5 5/10 8/5 20/20 21/13 21/16 22/14
24/4 26/1 29/4 33/25 34/4 36/9 36/10 36/11
43/21 52/3 52/6 56/7 56/11 56/15 56/16 57/15
seeing [5] 17/15 34/16 45/21 46/25 56/4
seeking [1] 30/7
sees [3] 16/2 29/14 45/10
sell [3] 37/11 54/1 59/15
selling [5] 35/3 43/23 44/6 54/3 58/5
seminars [1] 34/1
send [5] 27/14 27/25 28/6 55/5 55/9
sending [2] 28/21 28/23
sense [1] 45/13
sent [1] 28/1
sentence [1] 25/8
separate [3] 10/15 17/24 18/11
SEPTEMBER [5] 1/11 4/2 27/2 42/16 62/12
serious [1] 27/17
serve [1] 60/13
session [1] 4/9
sets [1] 48/2
several [1] 25/11
SFA [1] 59/22
shared [2] 20/16 22/7
she [25] 7/22 7/24 13/23 14/6 14/7 14/8 14/8
14/9 14/10 14/12 14/14 14/15 14/16 14/18 14/18
16/24 16/25 17/5 17/7 17/8 17/8 23/17 30/1
39/17 40/2
she's [6] 17/1 30/24 39/15 39/16 39/19 42/18
shelf [1] 51/25
shortcoming [1] 52/5
shortly [1] 60/15
shot [1] 52/17
should [5] 11/6 11/10 26/23 47/5 57/7
shouldn't [1] 42/9
show [3] 10/10 10/12 32/19
showed [1] 35/21
showing [4] 17/5 17/6 17/25 18/8
shows [1] 28/16
side [3] 5/22 19/4 43/14
SIEGFRIED [2] 3/9 4/24
significance [1] 29/23
significant [3] 7/22 21/9 43/19
similar [2] 10/6 18/10
simply [3] 24/17 24/24 33/8
since [1] 54/9
single [9] 10/8 32/12 39/5 39/7 41/19 46/13 48/4
49/20 60/3
singular [1] 26/5
situation [6] 12/6 15/6 16/14 16/15 19/13 39/8
six [3] 13/13 13/22 14/10
skeptical [1] 48/25
skirt [1] 31/11
slide [15] 20/9 20/9 20/20 25/5 25/6 27/9 28/16
28/19 29/4 31/7 33/15 33/25 34/5 34/16 34/17
slides [1] 32/20
slightly [1] 23/16
small [1] 20/25
Smith [3] 17/18 41/16 41/18
so [66]
sold [1] 36/16
solely [1] 19/15
SOLUTIONS [2] 1/8 35/4
some [14] 5/6 6/24 9/19 10/23 19/24 25/5 25/19
26/1 30/2 35/13 51/14 55/15 58/17 59/22
somebody [2] 39/22 48/20
somehow [1] 55/14
someone [1] 46/9
something [10] 11/10 15/20 15/21 16/3 34/20
34/20 39/18 46/5 48/20 56/15
somewhere [1] 47/3
sorry [1] 52/15
sort [3] 5/5 5/9 31/11
source [34] 4/5 6/5 6/7 6/8 6/15 6/17 6/19 7/3
7/13 7/23 7/24 9/10 10/4 13/20 15/1 15/25 16/8
41/7 41/9 41/17 42/11 44/19 44/24 45/20 48/5
52/25 55/19 55/22 56/1 56/23 57/1 57/9 57/18
60/18
span [1] 54/15
sparse [1] 8/9
speak [1] 49/1
speaking [1] 10/24
specialty [1] 22/16
specific [7] 11/2 18/6 26/19 34/21 36/20 50/17
55/23
specifically [7] 6/21 27/9 33/18 34/13 40/24
49/25 53/2
speculation [1] 15/12
speculations [1] 56/9
spoke [4] 40/1 40/2 40/18 42/19
spontaneous [1] 22/4
spray [1] 12/22
spray-irrigation [1] 12/22
SRMC [2] 15/2 15/5
ST [3] 1/15 1/19 2/7
stack [1] 28/25
staff [2] 18/20 29/13
stage [2] 17/13 52/22
stand [4] 4/15 21/23 51/7 53/23
standard [2] 30/9 59/13
standards [1] 24/21
standing [1] 41/9
STANDLY [3] 1/14 1/18 2/6
standlyhamilton.com [3] 1/17 1/21 2/9
stands [1] 53/2
staring [1] 56/7
start [2] 9/8 35/21
started [1] 42/20
starters [1] 59/1
starting [6] 9/13 11/20 18/13 35/22 54/25 56/20
starts [2] 43/6 52/19
statement [8] 33/7 42/7 42/14 42/23 43/9 47/22
47/24 48/1
STATES [7] 1/1 1/3 3/22 47/9 62/4 62/6 62/11
stating [1] 5/25
status [6] 9/10 10/3 34/23 39/19 57/1 57/19
statute [1] 11/21
stay [1] 4/11
stayed [1] 15/11
STEIN [3] 2/2 2/10 2/15
steinmitchell.com [3] 2/5 2/13 2/18
stenographically [1] 62/8
STENOGRAPHY [1] 3/15
stent [28] 24/7 24/8 24/9 25/21 29/15 29/16
31/10 36/21 37/13 37/14 37/15 37/19 37/22
37/22 38/3 38/11 38/13 38/13 38/13 38/18 38/19
43/2 50/11 50/13 50/14 52/14 55/6 59/22
stenting [2] 29/13 29/15
stents [39] 6/2 7/6 7/10 8/2 21/24 23/14 23/25
24/1 24/15 26/11 29/11 33/19 33/22 34/7 34/9
34/22 35/4 36/13 36/15 36/17 36/18 36/25 37/1
37/4 37/6 43/23 44/7 50/2 50/4 50/10 51/18
51/20 53/6 54/1 54/3 55/11 58/5 59/7 59/12
stick [1] 59/25
still [8] 10/1 10/12 10/13 17/8 17/14 17/14 26/23
37/16
stocking [1] 25/23
Stone's [1] 12/16
stop [3] 29/22 30/5 35/13
stopped [2] 17/20 18/17
story [1] 43/14
STREET [2] 3/23 62/16
stronger [1] 29/24
struck [1] 12/8
stuff [1] 42/13
subject [5] 4/5 11/24 12/9 46/14 48/6
submit [3] 10/5 19/2 35/5
62/5 62/15 62/16

than [8] 10/25 29/24 34/10 38/19 48/13 51/4
submitted [1] 30/12
55/16 59/22
submitting [1] 41/13
thank [17] 4/21 9/2 19/20 19/21 19/22 20/2
subsequent [1] 51/14
35/16 47/12 47/13 47/15 54/19 54/20 54/22 60/6
substantial [1] 31/7
60/24 60/25 61/1
substitute [4] 37/6 37/20 37/22 51/1
that [342]
substituting [1] 24/11
that's [55] 4/25 7/10 8/22 9/16 9/16 9/25 10/11
such [3] 6/23 25/14 41/7
12/5 13/17 15/6 16/5 16/11 17/16 19/13 21/13
sudden [1] 46/12
22/16 23/2 24/10 25/3 25/21 30/13 30/21 32/24
suffice [1] 56/10
37/7 38/3 38/6 38/11 38/14 38/15 38/20 38/21
sufficient [6] 17/5 32/3 48/25 49/21 52/24 56/3
39/11 39/17 40/13 42/1 42/2 42/25 44/18 46/15
suggest [1] 55/13
46/18 47/25 48/24 49/10 50/20 50/23 54/4 55/15
suggested [1] 21/9
55/15 56/3 56/9 56/19 58/16 59/1 59/5 59/24
suggesting [2] 50/8 60/4
their [9] 16/6 16/22 24/1 24/11 29/13 33/22
suggests [2] 21/10 59/4
37/24 59/12 59/15
suing [1] 19/15
them [16] 4/10 5/8 8/24 25/2 29/14 41/23 50/4
SUITE [7] 1/15 1/19 2/3 2/7 2/12 2/16 3/3
52/13 55/6 59/19 59/19 59/20 59/20 59/21 59/23
sum [1] 35/9
59/23
summary [8] 4/6 5/9 31/21 32/2 40/4 52/22 57/5 themselves [2] 34/7 51/3
60/17
then [29] 5/6 5/7 6/25 9/18 9/22 10/1 12/3 12/7
superiors [2] 20/15 20/17
12/12 13/4 13/19 15/8 15/18 24/7 25/22 27/21
supervisor [2] 22/8 25/6
28/7 28/19 36/11 39/1 42/6 43/13 46/1 46/9
supervisors [1] 23/17
46/10 46/11 53/16 56/5 59/2
supplied [2] 24/11 50/11
theory [1] 57/23
suppling [1] 24/5
therapies [4] 33/16 33/24 34/8 53/6
supply [1] 14/4
there [58] 6/10 6/24 7/8 7/19 8/1 8/8 10/5 10/10
supplying [1] 24/4
11/6 11/10 12/3 13/7 13/12 13/22 14/5 14/11
support [1] 37/9
14/18 14/19 16/13 16/15 16/18 16/19 17/18
supports [2] 26/3 32/5
17/19 23/22 24/14 26/4 26/9 26/12 28/1 28/21
supposed [3] 20/19 23/18 27/25
30/19 31/7 32/3 32/5 33/1 33/4 33/25 35/1 36/5
supposedly [4] 40/23 42/19 43/15 55/21
37/20 38/10 38/10 40/22 43/5 45/17 46/25 49/22
Supreme [2] 12/15 12/21
50/2 51/3 51/6 53/22 55/13 55/25 59/4 59/6 59/9
sure [5] 8/24 22/14 23/12 44/15 46/24
59/15
surgeon [8] 22/17 37/19 37/21 38/2 38/5 38/12 there to [2] 55/13 59/15
50/9 50/13
there's [32] 16/13 19/11 19/14 23/21 23/24
surgeons [7] 21/16 22/21 23/14 23/25 24/9
23/24 24/14 24/16 26/16 26/25 28/19 30/6 31/6
26/11 37/5
32/12 32/20 34/10 34/15 35/6 36/19 37/8 38/17
surprising [1] 55/25
46/6 46/16 47/23 52/8 52/20 53/20 55/13 56/16
suspect [2] 56/15 56/16
59/3 59/14 60/3
suspicion [2] 15/14 56/13
thereafter [1] 60/16
suttleties [1] 13/2
these [44] 5/23 13/17 22/20 23/6 23/11 23/13
switch [2] 10/23 11/4
23/16 23/20 24/2 24/5 24/17 26/7 26/13 26/14
system [7] 6/2 7/6 7/10 8/3 27/16 29/11 31/11
27/15 29/1 29/3 29/10 29/23 33/23 34/2 34/8
34/24 35/22 37/2 37/5 41/19 41/19 42/22 46/6
T
48/9 49/23 51/2 51/9 51/10 51/23 52/8 53/5 53/5
tactics [3] 44/9 44/9 58/10
53/8 53/11 54/18 55/11 59/4
take [15] 9/3 9/18 11/16 18/5 26/5 29/22 30/13 they [41] 4/9 4/9 4/11 12/8 14/21 16/17 17/10
43/14 45/16 51/5 51/6 53/12 54/11 60/10 60/22
18/17 20/18 22/4 22/8 23/7 24/1 24/9 24/10
taken [2] 35/7 50/19
24/17 24/19 27/5 27/10 27/24 29/5 32/9 35/13
taking [3] 30/5 44/14 48/24
36/2 36/12 37/12 37/16 38/4 47/21 49/22 50/3
talk [3] 10/7 10/22 35/21
50/13 50/13 51/12 51/15 51/18 51/23 56/17
talked [1] 44/17
59/12 59/19 59/20
talking [4] 20/5 25/12 33/12 36/13
they're [11] 22/1 22/2 24/4 24/10 33/22 37/11
talks [5] 36/6 36/9 39/4 39/22 43/6
40/11 46/14 50/4 59/18 59/19
target [2] 23/18 25/25
they've [1] 19/7
targeting [1] 52/12
thing [5] 40/17 41/16 42/4 45/21 60/3
targets [13] 21/8 21/14 21/15 21/25 22/4 26/10 things [7] 6/3 7/7 11/10 25/15 52/8 53/14 54/11
35/21 35/21 35/22 36/4 36/13 49/18 52/3
think [30] 7/22 8/1 9/13 10/21 11/20 13/16 18/9
teed [4] 5/7 13/15 13/19 47/18
19/4 20/25 24/13 25/4 25/5 26/16 26/20 26/22
tell [6] 5/24 5/24 23/22 58/7 59/21 59/23
30/19 31/17 32/5 34/10 34/19 48/2 48/11 48/16
telling [3] 38/17 40/25 59/17
49/13 52/20 53/17 53/19 54/9 54/13 60/13
tells [1] 27/22
think this [1] 31/17
Tenth [17] 31/19 32/1 40/1 40/7 40/13 42/7 47/1 thinking [1] 5/7
47/2 52/22 56/21 56/25 57/7 57/8 57/10 57/11
thinks [1] 36/22
57/17 57/18
third [4] 27/9 41/22 51/15 55/10
terms [5] 29/8 34/22 48/3 50/16 58/21
this [103]
territory [2] 27/23 28/20
Thomas [1] 40/18
test [2] 10/11 16/7
those [33] 6/7 11/9 16/12 19/12 21/24 21/25
testified [8] 10/1 28/4 29/3 36/1 51/19 51/22
22/22 22/23 22/24 24/9 28/12 29/19 30/11 31/1
55/4 59/11
32/4 32/11 32/19 36/5 37/7 39/12 40/4 40/5
testify [2] 43/15 55/1
44/10 46/18 49/4 50/2 52/9 53/18 54/5 54/7
testimony [4] 20/13 22/7 28/7 51/8
56/17 57/19 60/11
TEXAS [11] 1/1 1/12 1/16 1/20 2/8 3/3 3/22 3/23 though [3] 7/24 17/7 18/1
thought [3] 8/21 31/9 59/12

thousands [1] 29/9
three [5] 6/3 18/25 28/2 28/17 55/6
through [14] 11/19 14/20 14/23 14/24 28/14
28/15 30/10 31/6 34/3 46/17 48/18 48/18 49/11
53/14
time [22] 9/11 14/18 15/4 16/16 17/1 17/1 17/2
17/6 19/19 20/12 27/4 34/3 34/6 34/21 35/13
37/1 41/21 53/18 54/12 54/17 58/25 59/14
timeframe [1] 53/10
times [2] 33/21 47/18
Title [1] 62/6
TMs [1] 28/20
today [3] 4/15 45/20 60/23
together [2] 20/19 22/9
told [9] 4/9 35/13 40/10 40/11 40/23 42/16 44/6
55/8 58/1
too [6] 11/1 11/20 13/17 14/16 35/18 56/22
took [1] 5/16
top [1] 20/20
total [2] 35/9 54/15
tracking [1] 34/4
train [1] 51/16
trained [3] 29/10 53/12 54/1
training [13] 29/9 29/12 29/19 30/11 30/11
32/10 32/15 33/14 33/22 34/19 34/23 51/15 53/5
transcript [4] 1/10 3/15 62/7 62/9
TRANSCRIPTION [1] 3/15
transpired [1] 56/22
treat [1] 36/22
trial [1] 31/20
troubled [3] 6/13 6/16 8/4
troublesome [1] 43/25
true [3] 22/23 46/7 62/7
truly [2] 38/24 45/6
try [4] 8/23 8/24 35/18 37/6
trying [2] 52/13 56/7
Turco [1] 25/19
turn [4] 20/20 25/4 27/9 31/15
two [18] 5/19 7/20 8/7 11/24 14/24 16/12 16/14
16/20 17/12 19/19 24/14 28/5 42/4 44/22 52/20
55/9 58/1 60/10
two-month [1] 8/7
tying [1] 19/12
type [1] 10/20
types [1] 18/23
typically [1] 28/22
U
Uh [1] 37/23
Uh-huh [1] 37/23
ultimately [4] 29/5 56/20 56/25 57/17
under [16] 10/1 11/11 17/10 26/21 26/22 30/14
30/21 31/18 36/1 41/9 49/12 49/20 52/21 53/1
60/10 60/22
undercover [1] 15/20
underscores [1] 55/17
understand [3] 7/15 23/22 37/18
understanding [1] 5/12
understood [2] 36/25 37/3
undisputed [1] 6/5
unified [1] 25/9
uniform [1] 57/22
UNITED [7] 1/1 1/3 3/22 47/9 62/4 62/6 62/11
unless [3] 15/20 15/22 16/1
unrelated [1] 16/9
until [1] 4/10
up [14] 5/8 13/16 13/19 19/5 23/8 25/19 28/9
32/21 40/7 45/2 47/19 48/2 52/13 57/6
upon [1] 51/2
us [1] 4/9
use [32] 6/2 7/6 7/10 8/2 21/10 21/25 22/5 24/22
24/24 25/1 25/2 25/8 27/16 34/21 37/11 37/16
37/17 38/8 38/9 38/10 38/18 50/20 50/23 51/2
U
use... [8] 51/16 52/2 52/13 52/14 55/12 56/1
59/19 59/21
used [8] 14/3 23/14 34/24 36/16 53/8 53/11 54/6
58/11
using [15] 10/21 23/6 23/25 24/10 24/17 24/17
24/20 29/16 33/19 37/19 38/20 51/15 52/12 54/7
59/6
V
various [1] 5/10
vascular [34] 1/7 6/2 7/6 7/10 8/3 21/16 21/22
22/16 22/20 23/14 23/25 24/1 24/15 26/11 27/16
29/11 29/15 29/16 34/7 36/12 36/18 36/25 37/4
37/5 37/13 37/19 38/2 38/4 38/12 50/9 50/10
53/13 54/3 59/22
vascular-indicated [4] 36/12 36/18 37/13 59/22
vasculature [3] 37/16 38/9 59/8
vehicle [1] 10/23
vehicles [1] 11/4
vendors [1] 14/3
verified [1] 28/11
version [2] 33/2 33/5
versus [3] 4/6 44/5 47/9
very [14] 8/9 8/9 13/20 26/16 26/20 26/20 28/12
29/24 40/9 45/6 54/20 60/7 60/12 60/15
vessel [1] 33/20
VHA [1] 13/25
VICTORY [1] 3/2
view [1] 6/11
viewed [1] 55/21
views [1] 43/12
violations [2] 12/17 42/15
voluntarily [2] 11/9 59/10
voluntary [1] 6/11
VP [2] 32/15 32/16
Vuyyuru [7] 14/19 15/1 15/4 15/13 19/1 56/12
56/19
W
wait [1] 19/18
Walter [2] 25/23 25/23
want [19] 5/9 8/16 8/18 8/19 10/17 11/1 22/13
23/12 23/22 24/1 37/12 37/16 38/13 44/13 49/3
50/7 54/24 58/20 59/18
wanted [2] 30/13 55/5
wants [1] 36/21
warning [1] 33/18
was [88]
was sufficient [1] 32/3
WASHINGTON [3] 2/4 2/12 2/17
wasn't [2] 13/8 39/3
way [12] 7/22 10/9 11/22 13/21 14/23 19/1 19/1
19/2 19/3 41/23 47/18 59/15
we [50] 4/10 10/5 10/8 12/12 13/21 15/6 18/10
20/20 20/20 21/12 21/21 24/19 25/11 25/13
25/21 26/1 26/23 27/25 28/11 28/21 28/23 28/25
29/4 29/22 30/25 31/11 31/22 32/12 32/14 33/14
37/6 37/21 37/25 37/25 38/4 38/11 39/3 48/3
49/8 50/16 51/5 51/8 51/12 51/15 51/18 52/4
53/17 53/22 57/11 59/11
we'll [1] 45/5
we're [12] 25/12 36/13 45/19 47/17 53/1 54/11
56/6 57/11 57/13 57/14 57/14 59/4
we've [9] 24/21 32/7 32/8 38/5 38/8 38/9 38/10
45/1 45/4
website [1] 27/7
WEDNESDAY [1] 1/11
week [3] 60/11 60/14 60/15
well [35] 7/7 10/17 11/19 12/23 13/4 15/18
17/22 18/11 20/7 23/7 23/21 24/13 30/17 32/6
32/19 34/17 35/13 36/11 36/24 37/18 39/14 40/8
43/14 43/17 43/18 43/24 48/14 48/23 49/1 49/22
50/6 50/16 52/9 60/7 60/7

well-established [1] 48/14
went [2] 15/7 35/18
were [42] 7/8 18/16 20/18 23/5 23/5 24/10 24/17
24/17 27/10 27/24 27/25 28/12 29/15 29/19
30/25 31/1 32/9 32/11 34/24 35/13 36/7 36/16
36/16 38/22 42/14 44/2 50/6 51/9 51/9 51/15
51/18 51/21 51/23 51/24 52/4 53/8 53/11 53/18
53/25 55/11 55/21 59/11
weren't [2] 24/19 42/22
what [87]
what's [7] 15/10 16/20 33/9 36/18 45/24 46/4
51/14
whatever [2] 15/23 15/23
whatsoever [3] 36/1 36/6 36/19
WHC [1] 22/16
when [18] 5/21 13/8 18/20 19/9 21/14 24/25
25/8 25/21 26/7 29/14 42/25 52/3 52/6 53/12
54/5 54/6 55/15 56/2
where [29] 5/10 8/22 9/8 12/2 12/6 12/7 14/2
19/4 19/5 19/14 20/22 27/5 27/18 30/1 30/23
31/20 31/22 32/9 32/19 35/3 39/8 43/6 45/14
48/3 48/11 48/24 51/24 55/19 56/5
whether [13] 9/9 15/11 19/6 24/2 37/13 37/14
37/14 39/6 44/9 55/2 55/10 58/13 60/1
which [41] 6/19 7/20 9/8 10/7 12/10 12/25 13/2
15/13 15/15 16/7 20/10 20/14 20/22 21/6 21/12
21/23 25/5 26/3 28/12 29/9 30/6 31/21 34/13
36/6 37/15 37/16 41/22 42/7 42/11 48/14 49/9
50/18 50/19 51/3 51/13 51/16 53/4 53/19 54/17
56/4 59/6
while [6] 4/15 20/8 25/13 33/12 44/14 49/22
whistleblower [2] 30/24 39/19
whistleblowers [1] 46/8
white [1] 33/2
who [18] 16/16 21/22 21/25 27/21 32/16 39/22
40/14 40/19 40/20 41/2 41/12 42/14 42/18 42/19
46/10 59/10 59/10 59/17
whole [2] 43/16 52/5
whom [2] 21/17 50/3
why [11] 5/24 11/6 11/10 11/11 11/13 23/2
26/25 30/13 42/6 42/24 45/14
will [17] 4/8 4/10 4/11 4/13 4/14 4/18 5/1 5/6
9/8 25/5 25/20 31/15 48/8 52/2 60/14 60/17
60/22
William [1] 40/23
Williams [6] 20/10 20/13 20/18 22/8 25/7 49/17
Williams' [1] 23/17
willing [1] 45/5
wire [1] 15/20
wires [2] 38/9 49/24
wish [1] 5/8
withdrawn [1] 15/4
withdrew [1] 15/7
within [4] 9/25 27/21 34/13 35/8
without [3] 8/11 29/16 35/25
witnessed [2] 53/24 53/24
woman [1] 7/22
won't [1] 31/6
word [4] 38/14 47/17 54/21 60/1
words [2] 55/2 59/10
work [4] 16/3 20/19 22/9 25/22
worked [4] 5/12 5/15 13/13 53/23
working [4] 13/22 17/20 25/8 31/24
works [1] 15/21
would [19] 4/9 5/4 8/15 8/20 17/11 20/4 20/5
20/9 21/25 28/1 30/12 30/25 35/5 38/5 45/14
45/22 52/5 58/24 60/13
wouldn't [2] 38/15 47/25
write [1] 60/13
writing [2] 43/1 60/1
written [2] 18/16 18/16
wrong [3] 5/25 39/18 48/21
wrongdoer [2] 44/17 48/16
wrongdoers [1] 44/22

wrongdoing [5] 11/14 39/15 39/20 39/23 45/16
wrote [1] 43/2
X
Xc [2] 21/23 50/1
Xceed [3] 21/24 25/23 50/1
Xp [2] 21/23 50/1
Xpert [2] 21/24 50/2
Y
y'all [1] 8/15
year [1] 18/15
years [11] 14/24 17/21 18/17 18/25 32/17 34/15
42/20 45/2 45/5 45/6 53/16
yes [13] 4/19 5/3 5/14 8/20 16/11 19/22 20/2
22/18 32/21 32/24 44/20 46/22 47/5
yet [1] 13/14
you [127]
you were [2] 44/2 50/6
you'll [2] 8/23 8/24
you're [16] 10/22 15/24 15/24 16/7 22/14 38/4
38/19 39/1 43/18 44/14 47/17 50/8 50/25 51/1
54/6 56/6
you've [4] 46/20 57/18 59/17 59/25
you-all [2] 4/13 5/6
your [63]
Your Honor [2] 33/1 35/17
yours [1] 45/6
yourself [1] 42/10
Z
zero [1] 37/8

Abbott 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Abbott 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

ex rel. KEVIN N. COLQUITT,

ABBOTT LABORATORIES f/k/a

TRANSCRIPT OF MOTIONS HEARING

FOR THE RELATOR:

MR. CHRISTOPHER S. HAMILTON

MS. ANDREA FITZGERALD

MS. MERYL GRENADIER

MR. DAVID U. FIERST

MR. ANDREW A. KASSOF

MS. ELIZABETH S. HESS

PROCEEDINGS REPORTED BY MECHANICAL STENOGRAPHY, TRANSCRIPT

D. KEITH JOHNSON, RDR, CRR

(September 17, 2014)

I have scheduled for oral

argument the original source issue that is the subject of the

defendant's motion for summary judgment in Colquitt versus

Abbott, Case Number 6-1769.

I will advise all of you that I have a jury out.

until 5:00, so it is possible we will hear from them between

So if I get a knock on the door, you-all will have

to move away -- back.

I'll come back to you.

I will hear you

For the plaintiff, I have Mr. Hamilton,

Ms. Martin, Mr. Beato, Ms. Fitzgerald, Ms. Grenadier and

And Mr. Hamilton will argue; is that correct?

I don't believe I've ever

Yes, Your Honor.

met you before.

And for the defense, I have Mr. Kassof,

Mr. Bramblett, Ms. Hess and Mr. Siegfried, correct?

That's correct, Your Honor.

And Mr. Kassof will argue;

Let me -- what I would like

to do is sort of recapitulate this as I preliminarily see it,

and then I will give you-all some benefit of what I am

them up for you, or as you wish.

And then you can address the issues as I have teed

But I want to sort of give a little mini-summary of

It's my understanding that Mr. Colquitt worked

Is that the correct pronunciation?

February of '04 to June of '06.

during the period of April of '06 to June of '06.

evidence before me is that Guidant and Abbott operated --

continued to operate essentially as two different companies

period when Mr. Colquitt left Guidant.

on the Abbott side during the period of his employment.

Abbott took over from Guidant

So he was not active

To the extent people disagree with these facts, you

can tell me you do and give me evidence to tell me why I'm

The claim that remains in the case is off-label

The motion is directed to three things:

Can Mr. Colquitt, as a matter of law, based on the

undisputed facts, be an original source for the allegations of

off-label promotion before February of 2004; can he be the

he be the original source for any claims related to Abbott.

The focus of the briefing is on direct and

voluntary disclosure, but in my view, the focus is on direct

and independent knowledge.

There is briefing on the issue of