In re HIV Antitrust Litigation

Filing 952

Redacted Discovery Order. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 03/14/2022. (lblc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/14/2022)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

San Francisco Division

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

PETER STALEY, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 19-cv-02573-EMC (LB)
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
QUASH NON-PARTY SUBPOENA

v.

13
14

Re: ECF Nos. 920, 921, and 922.

GILEAD SCIENCES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

15
16
17

INTRODUCTION
18
The plaintiffs subpoenaed non-party Dr. John Cogan, a former board member of defendant
19
20
21
22

Gilead.1 Dr. Cogan now moves to quash the deposition subpoena.2 Dr. Cogan claims that the
deposition would be unduly burdensome because he (1) is a “busy individual,” (2) has no memory
of certain events, and (3) lacks any relevant non-privileged knowledge.3 The plaintiffs assert that
they should not be forced to accept Dr. Cogan’s declaration that he lacks knowledge at face value

23
and should be able to depose him about general non-privileged information concerning certain
24
25
26

Unredacted Sealed Disc. Ltr. – ECF No. 921-1 at 2; Redacted Disc. Ltr. – ECF No. 922 at 2.
Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (ECF); pinpoint citations are to the ECFgenerated page numbers at the top of documents.

27

2

Unredacted Sealed Disc. Ltr. – ECF No. 921-1 at 1.

28

3

Id. at 2–4.

1

ORDER – No. 19-cv-02573-EMC (LB)

1

proposed “virtual deposition” would be less burdensome than an in-person deposition, and this

2

fact militates in favor of denying the motion to quash.

3

Additionally, the cases that Dr. Cogan relies upon do not require a different result. For

4

example, Dr. Cogan cites St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Homes, an insurance coverage dispute,

5

where the court quashed the plaintiff’s non-party deposition subpoena because it would have been

6

unduly burdensome. No. 2:15-cv-0037 TLN KJN, 2015 WL 7077450, at *2–3 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 13,

7

2015). The court based its holding in that case on the proposed deponent’s declaration that he had

8

no knowledge of the underlying litigation that was the subject of the coverage dispute and the

9

plaintiff’s failure to “call[ ] into question” that representation. Id. Here, there is no dispute that Dr.
Cogan was involved in decisions relevant to the litigation, and the plaintiffs have pointed to

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

relevant topics that may not be privileged. Accordingly, the out-of-district decision in St. Paul is

12

not helpful and does not support Dr. Cogan’s request to quash the subpoena.

13
CONCLUSION

14
15

For the foregoing reasons, the court denies Dr. Cogan’s motion to quash. The deposition must

16

be conducted virtually, by Zoom or other similar platform, and is limited to no more than five

17

hours, including breaks.

18

Dr. Cogan’s Administrative Motions to Seal (ECF Nos. 920 and 921) are granted.

19

This disposes of ECF Nos. 920, 921, and 922.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Dated: March 14, 2022
______________________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER – No. 19-cv-02573-EMC (LB)

4