Medimmune, LLC v. PDL Biopharma, Inc.

Filing 249

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd granting in part and denying in part 191 plaintiff's Motion to Compel. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/16/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NOT FOR CITATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION MEDIMMUNE, LLC, Plaintiff, v. PDL BIOPHARMA, Defendant. / No. C08-05590 JF (HRL) ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL [Re: Docket No. 191] *E-FILED 12-16-2009* United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Pursuant to a 1997 agreement ("License Agreement") with defendant PDL Biopharma ("PDL"), plaintiff MedImmune LLC ("MedImmune") is licensed to practice certain PDL patents. MedImmune claims that PDL has breached certain provisions of the License Agreement. In this action, plaintiff seeks a declaration of noninfringement and invalidity as to the subject patents, as well as a declaration of contractual rights under the License Agreement. Presently before the court is MedImmune's motion to compel answers to interrogatories and the production of documents. Plaintiff also requests leave to take more than the 10 depositions allotted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30.1 PDL opposes the motion. The motion is also opposed by non-party Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Alexion"), who intervened in this matter to address certain Alexion documents sought by MedImmune. Upon consideration of the Shortly before the motion hearing, MedImmune withdrew a portion of its motion which sought modification of the Stipulated Protective Order, entered May 26, 2009, to permit certain former MedImmune executives to see PDL's claimed confidential information. The parties advise that they have reached an agreement as to that issue. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 moving and responding papers, as well as the arguments of counsel, this court grants the motion in part and denies it in part as follows: 1. MedImmune's motion to compel a further response to Interrogatories 4 and 5 is granted. Defendant has not managed to persuade that supplemental responses should be deferred. PDL shall serve its supplemental responses to these interrogatories within 10 days from the date of this order. To the extent PDL later discovers information that requires correction of its responses, it has a continuing obligation to supplement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e). 2. 3. MedImmune's motion to compel a further response to Interrogatory 13 is denied. MedImmune's motion to compel production of Alexion's opinion letters United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California produced to PDL in PDL Biopharma, Inc. v. Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., C.A. No. 07-156JJF (D. Del.) is denied. MedImmune has not convincingly demonstrated that the letters are relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 4. Based on the discussion at the motion hearing, and both sides having indicated 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 that they will likely need to take more than the 10 depositions permitted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30, MedImmune's motion is granted as follows: Each side shall be permitted to take up to 15 depositions. SO ORDERED. Dated: December 16, 2009 HOWARD R. LLOYD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 5:08-cv-05590-JF Notice electronically mailed to: Aaron P. Maurer amaurer@wc.com Aaron Y Huang aaron.huang@weil.com David Isaac Berl dberl@wc.com David Isaac Gindler DGindler@Irell.com, dlieberman@irell.com Esha Bandyopadhyay esha.bandyopadhyay@kirkland.com, julie.bueno@kirkland.com Gerson Avery Zweifach gzweifach@wc.com Jeffrey E. Faucette jfaucette@hrice.com, gprice@howardrice.com, jrustice@howardrice.com Jessamyn Sheli Berniker jberniker@wc.com Paul B. Gaffney pgaffney@wc.com Raymond Angelo LaMagna rlamagna@irell.com Vernon Michael Winters vern.winters@weil.com, nettie.asiasi@weil.com Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program. United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?