Mylan sued the newspaper after it wrote a series of stories about the company based on leaked documents. An FDA inspection later cleared the plant for business. In Mylan's suit, the company indicates that it has conducted an internal investigation in an attempt to find the leakers, but failed.
Now it wants the moles to be named as defendants in the case. In its legal papers, Mylan has already christened them "John Doe," the precursor to locating their identities in the discovery process and then adding them as named defendants in an updated complaint later in the litigation. In Mylan's complaint against the paper, the company says it conducted an internal probe of its standard operating procedures in May 2009, and produced a confidential report on that investigation. The pages of the report were "protected by attorney-client and work-product privilege, and are so labeled in bold type."
That report nonetheless seems to have made its way to the P-G. Mylan says in its suit:
Defendants, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, and John Doe 3 (herein collectively referred to as "Doe Defendants") are individuals in the employ of Mylan and/or Post-Gazette or otherwise, whose identity and residence are unknown after reasonable investigation, who improperly obtained and/or transferred possession of certain confidential, proprietary and/or privileged documents to Defendants Sabatini and Boselovic, Post-Gazette and/or other individuals employed by the Post-Gazette.The claim puts the P-G in a difficult position: It must now stand firm and protect its sources. If it does not, the employees of Mylan or its vendors who transferred the report to the P-G will probably be fired on the spot, and then sued.
Image: Mylan CEO Robert Coury.