The document was merely provided as an example of what information the PFCs were requiring when there was a legal matter at stake.

Filing an FDA adverse product event report may or may not lead to legal proceedings; this is up to the individual.  At issue here is whether the Federal Goverment should provide your personal information to said company or companies when you file a report that has no legal intent (at least at that point).

Also at issue is whether tax dollars ought to be spent to provide private industry with information they would have to spend their own money to discover, if they were able to do so at all.

I agree that if you file an adverse report all that is needed is a name, address and phone number and the complaint (maybe even the vet's name and number if applicable). That is it. If legal preceding come up the company should pay for their own discovery.

Rob, I agree with you but at the same time, we need attornies who are willing to defend its clients and stay in things for the long haul.  From what Ive seen any cases that were brought about from the 2007 recalls, were either settled for chump change, or walked away from by the attornies. So im not sure its the plaintiffs that need tougher skin, I personally think its the attornies that do.  They need to be willing to stand up and take these guys on, all the way through to the end...but costs, the present lowly classification of pets in the eyes of the law and the fact they are dealing with an industry who is loaded with money and attornies, Im sure, discourages them from doing so.

Yeah...I was really disappointed in hearing the settlement for the 2007 recall. Sad.

Civil suits (involving no criminal penalties) that I was involved in could go as long as 15 years in the appeals process. There is
a Charles Dickens book from the 1800s that talks about such lawsuits: Bleakhouse.

The plaintiff class reps in the Florida lawsuit never had to produce all that information, just as instructed by counsel, who objected
to production of the rest. But defense attorneys would have been lax in not asking, as your entire character goes on trial in a lawsuit
war. The companies' characters, too. It just never got that far because plaintiffs counsel walked away because it was a cost loser.

Don't forget chief reason that pet legal status is so low cost: AVMA doesn't want to have to carry malpractice insurance and wants pets
classed as cost-replaceable property so individual veterinarian practioners can't be sued is bottom line. That's a fact that consumers
are going to have to change. I don't have any other property that I provide food and medical care for throughout its sentient lifetime, nor any that invests so many emotions, and is called in every pet food ad and pet product ad, including ads for veterinary services, part of the family. Only if you get sued do pets revert to the status of a toaster or microwave.

AMEN!

Somewhere in that legal status, Rob, there has to be a reasonable compromise on the legal status of companion, as opposed to
food production, animals. Nice thing about law is that its dynamic and always evolving. And the law surrounding companion animals is
only going to evolve if consumers and veterinarians reach some type of compromise. Then if someone injures thousands and thousands
of companion animals, they won't escape with a wrist slap, like I fear the Millers are going to do. This was animal cruelty at its worst.

As for medical help for the consumer who can't afford it, that's a whole other human priority set of issues, and veterinary care has
priced itself out of the reach of many.

Rob, I'm just wishing there were magic bullet solutions here too for some very difficult problems. Having
government in charge of a Pet Food Early Warning Recall system is only a start which at this point is not
even going to be open to consumers to examine as far as I can tell. Long ways to go to improve the
situation that caught us all up in 2007 and affected so many of us.