Simon and Simon, PC v. Align Technology, Inc.

Filing 256

Discovery Order re ECF No. 241 Joint Discovery Letter Brief Regarding Discovery Requests Seeking Information From Non-Party Envista Holdings. Signed by Judge Thomas S. Hixson on 1/17/2023. (tshlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/17/2023)

Case 3:20-cv-03754-VC Document 256 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 5

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SIMON AND SIMON, PC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

DISCOVERY ORDER

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 241
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
Defendant.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 20-cv-03754-VC (TSH)

12
13

We are here on a joint discovery letter brief in which Align Technology, Inc., moves to

14

compel on 13 document requests that were contained in a subpoena it served on Envista Holdings

15

Corporation. ECF No. 241. The subpoena was served in the Central District of California, where

16

Envista is headquartered, but Envista has stipulated to adjudicate the dispute before this Court,

17

where the underlying action is pending. The Court held a hearing on January 17, 2023 and now

18

issues this order.

19

By way of background, Plaintiffs in this case bring two antitrust claims against Align.

20

They allege that Align monopolized the market for clear aligners for straightening teeth and,

21

separately, the market for intraoral scanners used to configure aligners, to the exclusion of

22

competitors, including through the use of exclusionary contracts with certain Dental Service

23

Organizations (“DSOs”). Among its other products, Envista sells braces, aligners, and intraoral

24

scanners, including to DSOs. Align maintains that Envista therefore has information relevant to

25

Align’s alleged monopoly power in both markets and to Align’s alleged exclusionary conduct as

26

to the DSOs.

27
28

Case 3:20-cv-03754-VC Document 256 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 5

1

The parties did not attach the subpoena to the joint discovery letter brief, but they jointly

2

summarize the requests for production (“RFPs”) on the first page, and the Court will assume the

3

summary is accurate. Align moves to compel the following from Envista:

4

•

goods sold for Envista’s braces, intraoral scanner, and clear aligner products.

5
6

•

RFPs 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 47: Annual strategy plans for Envista’s clear aligner,

7

braces, and scanner products and its strategic plans related to entering aligners and

8

acquiring the intraoral scanner business of Carestream Dental for approximately

9

$600 million.

10

•

12
13
14

RFPs 35, 36 and 37: Transaction-level data for U.S. sales of Envista’s intraoral
scanner, clear aligner and braces products.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

RFPs 1, 2 and 3: Documents sufficient to show, by year and by quarter, the cost of

•

RFP 19: Information about Envista’s sales of intraoral scanner, clear aligner, and
braces to DSOs, as well as exemplar agreements.

Align says its motion to compel is limited to its offer of compromise in Exhibit 1 to the

15

joint discovery letter brief. As relevant here, that means Align is seeking materials only from

16

finance databases or central files. Align is not seeking custodial files.

17

For RFPs 35, 36 and 37, Align articulates two theories of relevance. First, information

18

showing that customers switched between Envista’s braces and aligners is relevant to market

19

definition because it may show that braces and aligners are or are not reasonably interchangeable.

20

Second, information showing switching between brands of aligners (such as doctors switching

21

from using Align aligners to Envista aligners) is relevant to Align’s alleged monopoly power.

22

Envista does not dispute the relevance of this data. Rather, during meet and confer, it offered to

23

provide this data in anonymized form, but anonymized in such a way that Align could cross-

24

reference braces and aligner customers to see if they switched (which really only addresses

25

Align’s first theory of relevance).

26

Align’s two theories of relevance appear to implicate two different types of customers with

27

different confidentiality concerns. The first theory implicates end users who buy and wear braces

28

or aligners. These are ordinary people from all walks of life, some substantial number of whom
2

Case 3:20-cv-03754-VC Document 256 Filed 01/17/23 Page 3 of 5

1

are probably minors, and whether they had their teeth straightened is private medical information.

2

These people’s names should be kept confidential. Align doesn’t need to know who they are, just

3

if they switched between Envista’s braces and aligners. Envista’s proposal to anonymize these

4

names in a manner that allows Align to determine if they switched between those products is

5

acceptable.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

Align’s second theory of relevance appears to implicate doctors. The names of doctors

7

who prescribe aligners or braces is not private medical information because this is their job.

8

Rather, this information is competitively sensitive because it would tell Align which doctors are

9

working with the competition. However, whether doctors switch from selling Align’s products to

10

selling Envista’s competing products does seem important to determining whether Align has

11

monopoly power. Similarly, whether a given dental practice sells both Align’s products and

12

Envista’s competing products is probative of whether Align has monopoly power. Align has

13

available to it the names of the doctors who sell its products, but the only way it can learn which

14

doctors work with Envista is from Envista; there is no other practical way to obtain this

15

information. Accordingly, under Rule 45(d)(3)(C), Align has justified obtaining this transactional

16

data without the doctors’ names being anonymized. The Court observes that there is a protective

17

order in place that should prevent Align from misusing this information.

18
19
20

Accordingly, Align’s motion to compel as to RFPs 35, 36 and 37 is GRANTED IN PART
and DENIED IN PART as stated above.
For RFPs 1, 2 and 3, Align seeks COGS information for Envista’s braces, intraoral scanner

21

and clear aligner products. Together with the transactional data sought by RFPs 35, 36 and 37,

22

Align can then derive Envista’s profit margins. (Align includes braces in this list based on its

23

contention that braces and clear aligners are in the same market.) Align is correct that the ability

24

to earn higher profit margins than competitors over a sustained period of time may be evidence of

25

market power. Thus, Align’s ability to compute Envista’s profit margins on these products and

26

compare them to Align’s profit margins does seem relevant to the existence of market power.

27

Envista does not directly address RFPs 1, 2 and 3 in its portion of the letter brief. It states that its

28

final proposed compromise is to produce total revenue by year for its braces, aligners and intraoral
3

Case 3:20-cv-03754-VC Document 256 Filed 01/17/23 Page 4 of 5

1

scanners. However, Align is attempting to take discovery on the relevant subject of profit

2

margins, and revenue figures will not reveal that information. The Court again believes that the

3

protective order is sufficient to protect Envista’s confidentiality concerns over its profit margins.

4

Accordingly, Align’s motion to compel is GRANTED as to RFPs 1, 2 and 3.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

5

In the argument section of the joint discovery letter brief, Align seems to narrow RFP 19,

6

stating that it “seeks documents sufficient to show which Dental Service Organizations bought

7

Envista’s Scanner or Aligners and exemplar agreements.” Align argues this information is

8

relevant to Plaintiffs’ claim that Align monopolized the scanner and aligner markets in part by

9

entering into exclusive contracts with certain DSOs. Align is correct that documents showing with

10

DSOs bought Envista’s scanners or aligners are relevant to proving or disproving the claim of

11

exclusive dealing. Envista does not seem to disagree and offers to provide a list of its DSO

12

customers and its template DSO agreement. Thus, the only disagreement between the parties is

13

whether Envista should produce real exemplar contracts or a template agreement. The problem

14

with a template is that neither Align nor Plaintiffs will know if any actual agreement resembled the

15

template. Producing a template would then seem to necessitate a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of

16

Envista to learn if its actual contracts resemble the template. It is better for Envista to produce real

17

exemplar contracts because those are actual agreements. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS

18

Align’s motion as to RFP 19.

19

For RFPs 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 47 – which request Envista’s strategy plans – the Court finds

20

that these RFPs seek Envista’s “confidential . . . commercial information” within the meaning of

21

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3)(B)(i). Indeed, it would be hard to overstate the sensitive

22

nature of these materials in the context of this lawsuit. For its aligners and scanners, Envista’s

23

largest competitor is obviously Align, which is by far the largest and best known seller of aligners

24

and intraoral scanners. Envista’s strategy plans for its aligners and scanners are therefore

25

principally plans for competing against Align. (And in Align’s view of the world, in which braces

26

and aligners are in the same market, Envista’s strategy plans for its braces are also about

27

competing with Align.) Forcing Envista to turn over these strategy plans to Align – no matter how

28
4

Case 3:20-cv-03754-VC Document 256 Filed 01/17/23 Page 5 of 5

1

good the protective order in this case is – strikes at the heart of Envista’s most sensitive

2

confidentiality concerns.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

3

Under Rule 45, Align is therefore required to “show[] a substantial need for the . . .

4

material that cannot otherwise be met without undue hardship . . .” Align has not made that

5

showing. Align argues that Envista’s strategy plans likely reveal its views and evaluation of the

6

relevant markets, including the scope of the alleged markets, Align’s power in those markets, and

7

the vigorousness of competition in those markets. While that is probably true, Align has not

8

shown that Envista is in any better position than Align itself is to evaluate the alleged markets for

9

aligners, braces and intraoral scanners. Align is by far the largest seller of aligners and intraoral

10

scanners in the U.S. and is probably better situated than anyone to understand the relevant markets

11

and competition in them. While Align does not sell metal braces, it cares deeply about the

12

potential interchangeability of braces and aligners and has probably researched that issue more

13

than anyone else. Indeed, in the joint discovery letter brief, Align argues solely that the requested

14

materials are relevant and does not even breathe the suggestion that it has a substantial need for

15

these materials that cannot otherwise be met without undue hardship. Accordingly, Align’s

16

motion to compel is DENIED as to RFPs 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 47.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated: January 17, 2023

20
THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5