Order holding Pfizer's motion to intervene in abeyance — PHMPT v. FDA

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas · No. 4:21-cv-01058-P · Doc. 57 · 2022-02-07 · Docket on CourtListener

Summary

An order entered February 7, 2022 as Doc. 57 in Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency v. Food and Drug Administration, No. 4:21-cv-01058-P, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division. It addresses Pfizer, Inc.'s Motion to Intervene for a Limited Purpose, ECF No. 40, which was heard on January 28, 2022. The order states that Pfizer represented its interests are currently aligned with both parties but could diverge, for example over redactions before production. The court defers ruling until a conflict is imminent or has manifested, holds the motion in abeyance, and instructs Pfizer to file a concise notice if that occurs. It is signed by United States District Judge Mark T. Pittman and runs 2 pages.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
FORT WORTH DIVISION 
 
PUBLIC HEALTH AND MEDICAL 
PROFESSIONALS FOR TRANSPARENCY,  
 
Plaintiff,  
 
 
v. 
 
 
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION,  
 
Defendant. 
 
No. 4:21-cv-1058-P 
v.  
 
 
PFIZER, INC.,  
 
Movant.  
 
ORDER 
Before the Court is Movant Pfizer, Inc.’s Motion to Intervene for a 
Limited Purpose (“Motion”). ECF No. 40. On January 28, 2022, the 
Court held a hearing on the Motion, where Pfizer represented that their 
interests in the litigation are currently aligned with Plaintiff and 
Defendant. To that end, Pfizer seeks, like Plaintiff and Defendant, the 
expeditious production of the requested documents.  
Pfizer also (correctly) recognizes that the Parties’ currently aligned 
interests could potentially diverge. For instance, the Parties could 
disagree about which documents, or portions of documents, should or 
should not be redacted prior to production. Accordingly, Pfizer seeks to 
intervene because their interests might not be adequately represented 
by either Plaintiff or Defendant in the future. See, e.g., Wal-Mart Stores, 
Inc. v. Tex. Alcoholic Beverage Comm’n, 834 F.3d 562 (5th Cir. 2016); 
Entergy Gulf States La., L.L.C. v. EPA, 817 F.3d 198 (5th Cir. 2016); 
Texas v. United States, 805 F.3d 653 (5th Cir. 2015).  
Case 4:21-cv-01058-P   Document 57   Filed 02/07/22    Page 1 of 2   PageID 2151
Case 4:21-cv-01058-P   Document 57   Filed 02/07/22    Page 1 of 2   PageID 2151

 
2 
 
The Court, however, concludes that it will defer ruling on the Motion 
until a conflict is imminent or has, in fact, manifested. The Court will 
therefore hold Pfizer’s Motion in ABEYANCE. Pfizer is INSTRUCTED 
to file a concise Notice with the Court if a conflict is imminent or has, in 
fact, manifested.  
SO ORDERED on this 7th day of February, 2022.  
 
Mark T. Pittman 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
Case 4:21-cv-01058-P   Document 57   Filed 02/07/22    Page 2 of 2   PageID 2152
Case 4:21-cv-01058-P   Document 57   Filed 02/07/22    Page 2 of 2   PageID 2152

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.txnd.353278.57.0.pdf

Size

154,235 bytes

SHA-256

8bfbb8aec9dc5abb0cf681a142be411efe970b79c8d61ef966fbc5b54b52635d

Our copy

gov.uscourts.txnd.353278.57.0.pdf

Original

archive.org