Nevro Corp v. Boston Scientific Corporation et al

Filing 273

Discovery Order re 222 , 235 , 267 Joint Discovery Letter Briefs. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 1/24/2018. (mejlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/24/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

NEVRO CORP,

Case No. 16-cv-06830-VC (MEJ)

Plaintiff,
8

DISCOVERY ORDER

v.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 222, 235, 267

9
10

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, et
al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

INTRODUCTION

13

Pending before the Court are the parties two joint discovery letters. Dkt. Nos. 222, 235;

14
15

see also Dkt. No. 267 (joint letter following meet and confer). Having considered the parties’

16

positions, the relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, the Court issues the following

17

order.

18
19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

bearing on proportionality before propounding discovery requests, issuing responses and

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7
8

A.

Dkt. No. 222
Plaintiff Nevro Corp. may seek responses to Issues 2, 3, and 6 through expert discovery.

9

Defendants Boston Scientific Corporation and Boston Scientific Neuromodulation (together,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

“BSC”) shall provide written responses to Issues 1, 4, 5, 8, and 9, as well as a privilege log for

12

Issue 7.

13

B.

14
15
16

Dkt. No. 235
Nevro’s requested discovery is disproportional to the needs of this case and overly

burdensome. Nevro’s request is therefore DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18
19
20

Dated: January 24, 2018
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2