Alzheimer's Institute of America v. Elan Corporation PLC et al

Filing 233

ORDER VACATING HEARING, REQUIRING DOCUMENTS BE LODGED IN CAMERA, REQUIRING FURTHER BRIEFING. Signed by Judge Laporte on 9/1/11. (edllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/1/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

ALZHEIMER’S INSTITUTE OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

v.
ELAN CORPORATION PLC, et al.,
Defendants.

13
14

No. C-10-482-EDL
ORDER VACATING SEPTEMBER 6,
2011 HEARING ON MOTION TO
COMPEL; REQUIRING PRODUCTION
OF DOCUMENTS TO COURT FOR IN
CAMERA REVIEW; REQUIRING
BRIEFING ON IMPACT OF EASTERN
DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
COURT’S DECISION ON THIS
COURT’S SCHEDULE

15

In this patent infringement case, Defendant Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Elan”) has filed a

16

motion to compel production of two documents withheld on grounds of attorney-client privilege and

17

work product by Plaintiff Alzheimer’s Institute of America, Inc. (“AIA”). Elan also asks the Court

18

to Order AIA to revise its privilege log, and search, collect and produce all other documents

19

withheld on the basis of privilege of other related entities . The Court finds that an in camera review

20

of the two documents in question (EDMO-AIA006737-6753 and EDMO-AIA006758-6759) is

21

required for the Court to resolve this dispute. Therefore, the September 6, 2011 hearing on the

22

motion is VACATED and the parties shall lodge the documents with the Court for the Court’s in

23

camera review within one week of the date of this Order. Upon review of the documents, the Court

24

will set a hearing on the motion to compel if it believes that a hearing is necessary prior to issuing an

25

Order.

26

Additionally, in connection with the motion to compel, Elan filed motions to seal portions of

27

its motion and reply and certain supporting documents, based in part on the fact that some of the

28

information contained therein had been designated confidential by AIA. AIA has failed to timely
file a declaration as required by Local Rule 79-5(d). If AIA desires to retain the information as

1

confidential, it shall file a declaration in compliance with Local Rule 79-5(d) within one week of the

2

date of this Order.

3

Finally, the Court has become aware that, in the parallel case of Alzheimer’s Institute of

4

America, Inc. v. Avid Radiopharmaceuticals, et al., C-10-6908 (E.D. Pa.), on August 31, 2011 a

5

Pennsylvania District Court denied AIA and Avid’s cross-motions for summary and intends to hold

6

an early trial on the issue of standing. A determination of the standing issue in the Pennsylvania

7

litigation appears likely to impact the parties in this case as well. The parties are Ordered to file

8

briefs of no more than three pages each on the impact of the Pennsylvania District Court’s decision

9

and upcoming trial on standing on this case, and in particular on the Court’s current claim

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

construction schedule.

11
12 IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE
United States Magistrate Judge

14 Dated: September 1, 2011
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2