Amgen Inc. et al v. Sandoz Inc. et al

Filing 242

Redacted Discovery Order. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 5/5/2017. (mejlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/5/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

AMGEN INC., ET AL.,

Case No. 14-cv-04741-RS (MEJ)

Plaintiffs,
8

DISCOVERY ORDER

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 236

9
10

SANDOZ INC., et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

INTRODUCTION

14

Plaintiff Amgen Inc. (“Amgen”) and Defendant Sandoz Inc. (“Sandoz”) filed a joint

15

discovery letter, in which Sandoz seeks an order for Amgen to produce a witness on Topic 35 of

16

Sandoz’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) notice of deposition. Jt. Ltr., Dkt. No. 236.

17

Having considered the parties’ positions, the relevant legal authority, and the record in this case,

18

the Court issues the following order.

19
20

LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 provides that a party may obtain discovery “regarding

21

any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the

22

needs of the case[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Factors to consider include “the importance of the

23

issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant

24

information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and

25

whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Id.

26

Discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. Id. However, “[t]he parties and

27

the court have a collective responsibility to consider the proportionality of all discovery and

28

consider it in resolving discovery disputes.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 advisory committee notes (2015

1

amendments). Thus, there is “a shared responsibility on all the parties to consider the factors

2

bearing on proportionality before propounding discovery requests, issuing responses and

3

objections, or raising discovery disputes before the courts.” Salazar v. McDonald’s Corp., 2016

4

WL 736213, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2016); Goes Int’l, AB v. Dodur Ltd., 2016 WL 427369, at

5

*4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2016) (citing advisory committee notes for proposition that parties share a

6

“collective responsibility” to consider proportionality and requiring that “[b]oth parties . . . tailor

7

their efforts to the needs of th[e] case”).
DISCUSSION

8

On March 7, 2017, Sandoz served Amgen with a Rule 30(b)(6) notice of deposition, which

9

included Topic No. 35: “To the best of Amgen’s knowledge, whether and to what degree

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

filgrastim binds to DOWEX ion exchange resins, including specifically DOWEX 1x2 anion

12

exchange resin.” Jt. Ltr., Ex. A at 8. Amgen objects on grounds that Topic 35 lacks specificity, is

13

overbroad, and is inappropriate for a fact witness, as it requires an expert opinion. Jt. Ltr. at 2; id.,

14

Ex. B at 24. Sandoz counters that it should be allowed to question an Amgen witness regarding

15

Amgen’s use of DOWEX resins to purify filgrastim and whether filgrastim binds to them because

16

“[t]he question of whether filgrastim binds to DOWEX ion exchange resins is fundamental to

17

Amgen’s theory of infringement.” Jt. Ltr. at 1.
As Amgen’s infringement contention is based in part on the use of DOWEX resins, Sandoz

18
19

is entitled to seek information about Amgen’s use of DOWEX resins to purify filgrastim. But

20

Topic No. 35 does not reflect this: it does not specifically address Amgen’s use of DOWEX

21

resins. Rather, as written, it seeks information about how filgrastim and DOWEX resins interact

22

generally. Sandoz does not argue that it cannot obtain this information from a source other than a

23

Rule 30(b)(6) witness.
Amgen states it has offered to provide a witness if Sandoz tailors Topic No. 35, for

24
25

instance, to address the specific way(s) Amgen uses the DOWEX resin. Jt. Ltr. at 3. The Court

26

orders Sandoz to so tailor Topic No. 35. To the extent the narrowed Topic No. 35 does not require

27

an expert opinion or testimony, Amgen shall produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness.

28

//
2

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2
3
4
5

Dated: May 5, 2017
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3