Barton

Barton v. Usdc-Cac

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 8, 200505-71086California3,794 words

Opinion

Opinion

Facts.

Plaintiffs sued SmithKline Beecham Corporation, which does business as GlaxoSmithKline. They claim injury from Paxil, a medication manufactured by SmithKline. Plaintiffs did not initiate contact with their lawyers by walking into the law office. Instead, the law firm posted a questionnaire on the internet, seeking information about potential class members BARTON v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6741 for a class action the law firm contemplated.1 The district court ordered plaintiffs to produce the four plaintiffs’ answers to the questionnaire.2 Plaintiffs seek, and we grant, a writ of mandamus vacating the district court’s order compelling pro- duction.

The law firm that now represents the plaintiffs posted a questionnaire relating to the antidepressant Paxil on the inter- net. Although the firm in its briefs calls the questionnaire an “intake” questionnaire, it did not call it that on the net. The law firm’s presentation on the web does not say that those who answer the questionnaire are submitting themselves to the firm as potential clients.

The questionnaire is entitled “PAXIL WITHDRAWAL LITIGATION INITIAL CONTACT.” Its introduction, in boldface,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.