Eastman et al v. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated

Filing 45

ORDER by Judge Orrick granting in part and denying in part 43 Motion for Extension of Time to Amend. Plaintiffs request to compel Quest to produce documents is DENIED. Plaintiffs may have until July 6, 2015 to file their amended complaint. (wholc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/22/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

COLLEEN EASTMAN, et al.,

Case No. 15-cv-00415-WHO

Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS
INCORPORATED,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR
ADDITIONAL TIME TO FILE
AMENDED COMPLAINT AND
RELATED DISCOVERY REQUESTS
Re: Dkt. No. 43

12
13

On June 9, 2015, I granted defendant Quest Diagnostics Inc.’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’

14

complaint with leave to amend. Dkt. No. 42. Plaintiffs’ amended complaint is due by June 29,

15

2015. On June 15, 2015, plaintiffs filed an administrative motion captioned “motion to request

16

additional time to file first amended complaint.” Dkt. No. 43. Plaintiffs’ motion in fact seeks an

17

order requiring Quest to produce documents responsive to seven broad document requests within

18

15 days, and extending plaintiffs’ time to file an amended complaint until 30 days after the

19

documents are produced. Id. at 3-5.

20

Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED. They have yet to file a complaint that states a claim. The

21

Supreme Court has cautioned against subjecting antitrust defendants to burdensome discovery

22

before plaintiffs have stated plausible claims to relief. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

23

544, 558 (2007) (“[I]t is one thing to be cautious before dismissing an antitrust complaint in

24

advance of discovery, but quite another to forget that proceeding to antitrust discovery can be

25

expensive. . . . [A] district court must retain the power to insist upon some specificity in pleading

26

before allowing a potentially massive factual controversy to proceed.”) (citations and internal

27

quotations omitted); see also Sky Angel U.S., LLC v. Nat'l Cable Satellite Corp., 296 F.R.D. 1, 2-3

28

(D.D.C. 2013) (“The Rule 8 screening function would be rendered toothless if Sky Angel were

1

entitled to pre-complaint discovery in order to fish for conduct that gives rise to an antitrust

2

violation.”).

3

This is not a case where all the relevant information necessary to state a plausible claim is

4

in the hands of the defendant. Plaintiffs’ allegations relate to issues that have been litigated

5

extensively in Rheumatology Diagnostics Laboratory, Inc. v. Aetna, Inc., No. 12-cv-05847-WHO

6

(N.D. Cal) and State of California ex rel. Hunter Laboratories, LLC v. Quest Diagnostics

7

Incorporated, No. CIV-34-2009 (Cal. Sup. Court) and were the subject of government

8

investigations. Plaintiffs have access to materials publicly disclosed in those actions and

9

investigations. Plaintiffs also have access to their own records and other publicly available
material and whatever investigative tools are at their disposal. That may or may not be enough for

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

plaintiffs to state plausible allegations, but their inability to do so to date does not entitle them to

12

fish further for conduct that gives rise to an antitrust violation at Quest’s significant burden and

13

expense.

14
15
16
17
18
19

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Quest to produce documents is DENIED. Dkt. No. 43.
Plaintiffs may have until July 6, 2015 to file their amended complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 22, 2015
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2