Jacksonville Police Officers and Fire Fighters Health Insurance Trust v. Gilead Sciences, Inc. et al

Filing 105

ORDER GRANTING 88 Motion to Stay Discovery. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on December 5, 2022. (jswlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2022)

Case 4:20-cv-06522-JSW Document 105 Filed 12/05/22 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

JACKSONVILLE POLICE OFFICERS
AND FIRE FIGHTERS HEALTH
INSURANCE TRUST, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

v.

Case No. 20-cv-06522-JSW
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
STAY DISCOVERY
Re: Dkt. No. 88

GILEAD SCIENCES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of the motion to stay discovery

14

filed by Defendants Gilead Sciences, Inc., Cipla, Ltd., and Cipla USA, Inc. (“Defendants”). The

15

Court has considered the parties’ papers, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case. The

16

Court concludes the motion is suitable for disposition without oral argument and VACATES the

17

hearing scheduled for December 9, 2022. The Court HEREBY GRANTS Defendants’ motion.
BACKGROUND

18
19

The Court recounted the facts underlying the parties’ dispute in its Order granting, in part,

20

and denying, in part, Defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. See Jacksonville

21

Police Officers and Fire Fighters Health Insurance Trust v. Gilead Scis., Inc., No. 20-cv-6522-

22

JSW, 2022 WL 3579881, at *1-5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2022). The Court concluded Plaintiff,

23

Jacksonville Police Officers and Fire Fighters Health Insurance Trust (the “Trust”), sufficiently

24

stated a claim under the Sherman Act based on allegations that Defendants entered into a “reverse

25

payment settlement.” Id., at *5-9. The Court dismissed the Trust’s state law claims, including a

26

claim under California’s Cartwright Act, for lack of standing, and it granted the Trust leave to

27

amend. Id., at *9-10.

28

On September 23, 2022, the Trust filed the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), which

Case 4:20-cv-06522-JSW Document 105 Filed 12/05/22 Page 2 of 4

1

dropped the Sherman Act claim and added a plaintiff identified as John Doe, who is a resident of

2

California. Plaintiffs maintain all of their state law claims and once again allege Defendants

3

entered into a reverse payment settlement.
ANALYSIS

4

United States District Court
Northern District of California

5

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) provides that a court may “for good cause, issue an

6

order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or

7

expense” by, inter alia, forbidding discovery or by specifying terms, including time and place, for

8

disclosure or discovery. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(c)(1)(A)-(B). The Court has discretion to stay

9

discovery pending the resolution of dispositive motions and motions to dismiss. See, e.g., Jarvis

10

v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Wood v. McEwen, 644 F.2d 797, 801 (9th

11

Cir. 1981) (good cause to stay discovery may exist where a court is “convinced that the plaintiff

12

will be unable to state a claim for relief”). “A party seeking a stay of discovery carries the heavy

13

burden of making a ‘strong showing’ why discovery should be denied.” Gray v. First Winthrop

14

Corp., 133 F.R.D. 39, 40 (N.D. Cal. 1990) (quoting Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418,

15

429 (9th Cir. 1975)). “The moving party must show a particular and specific need for the

16

protective order, as opposed to making stereotyped or conclusory statements.” Id. (citations

17

omitted).

18

In determining whether to grant a protective order to stay discovery pending resolution of

19

dispositive motions, the Court considers the following two factors: (1) whether the pending

20

motion is potentially dispositive of the entire case, or at least dispositive on the issue at which

21

discovery is directed; and (2) whether the pending dispositive motion can be decided absent

22

additional discovery. The Pacific Lumber Co. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA,

23

220 F.R.D. 349, 352 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (internal citations omitted); see also In re Nexus 6p Prod.

24

Liab. Litig., No. 17-cv-2185-BLF, 2017 WL 3581188, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2017) (citing

25

cases). If a court concludes the answer to those two question is yes, it may issue a protective

26

order. Pac. Lumber Co., 220 F.R.D. at 352. “However, if either prong of this test is not

27

established, discovery proceeds.” Id.

28

Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’ motion is premature because they have not served
2

Case 4:20-cv-06522-JSW Document 105 Filed 12/05/22 Page 3 of 4

1

discovery and, thus, there is “no issue at which discovery is directed.” However, given the nature

2

of the claims and the scope of Plaintiffs’ proposed class, the Court does not find this argument

3

persuasive. In addition, Defendants’ motion was prompted, in part, because the parties raised their

4

dispute about the need for discovery prior to resolution of the in their case management

5

conference statement.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

The parties each assert that the agreements Defendants submitted with the motion to

7

dismiss strongly support their respective positions about whether a reverse payment settlement

8

exists. Plaintiffs also argue Defendants could have submitted the agreements with their first

9

motion to dismiss, and they urge the Court not to visit its previous ruling. The Court expresses no

10

opinion on the merits of the pending motion to dismiss, but after a preliminary review of the

11

motion and the opposition, the Court finds Defendants’ arguments are potentially dispositive.

12

Moreover, even if Defendants’ arguments regarding extraterritorial application of the Cartwright

13

Act does not result in an outright dismissal of that claim, it may significantly narrow the scope of

14

discovery. Accordingly, the Court concludes Defendants have satisfied the first prong of the test.

15

Although Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’ motion presents factual disputes that will

16

require discovery, they do not suggest the Court cannot resolve the motion to dismiss without the

17

benefit of discovery. Based on the Court’s preliminary review of the motion, it finds no discovery

18

is needed for resolution of Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and thus concludes that Defendants

19

have met their burden under the second prong of the test.

20

As discussed above, in light of the nature of the claims and the allegations about the

21

putative class, the Court concludes that Defendants have shown that a ruling on the motion could

22

also limit the scope of the discovery that would be necessary, reducing the burden or expense

23

imposed. The Court also concludes Plaintiffs would not be prejudiced by a stay of discovery

24

pending a ruling on Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Court has not yet entered a scheduling

25

order and has continued the case management conference pending resolution of the motion to

26

dismiss. Thus, Plaintiffs will not suffer harm if the Court stays discovery pending the Court’s

27

ruling, which it will issue in a timely manner.

28

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion and stays discovery pending a ruling on
3

Case 4:20-cv-06522-JSW Document 105 Filed 12/05/22 Page 4 of 4

1

Defendants motion to dismiss.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4
5

Dated: December 5, 2022
______________________________________
JEFFREY S. WHITE
United States District 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
4