Medimmune, LLC v. PDL Biopharma, Inc.

Filing 519

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd granting 486 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration re 478 . (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/17/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NOT FOR CITATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION MEDIMMUNE, LLC, Plaintiff, v. PDL BIOPHARMA, INC. Defendant. / No. C08-05590 JF (HRL) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Re: Docket No. 486] *E-FILED 05-17-2010*

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 Civil Local Rule 7-9(b), plaintiff MedImmune, LLC ("MedImmune") moves for reconsideration of this court's April 1, 2010 order (Docket No. 478) granting a motion for protective order filed by defendant PDL Biopharma, Inc. ("PDL") as to a subpoena MedImmune served on nonparty Genzyme Corp. ("Genzyme"). Specifically, MedImmune contends that the addition of PDL's amended counterclaims and the setting of a new case schedule as to those counterclaims presents "new material facts" warranting reconsideration under Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(2). PDL opposes the motion. This court finds the matter suitable for determination without oral argument, and the May 25, 2010 hearing is vacated. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Upon consideration of the moving and responding papers, this court grants the motion. Although nothing changes the fact that the Genzyme subpoena was late, this court finds that the balance of equities has shifted in MedImmune's favor. The April 1, 2010 order was based on

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

the fact that the Genzyme subpoena was late and, under the then-existing schedule, PDL would be prejudiced. The June 2010 trial has since been vacated. True, there has been no wholesale reopening of discovery as to issues that have been in the case from the start. Nevertheless, MedImmune convincingly argues that the discovery in question is important to its prior art investigation. Moreover, this court is unpersuaded that PDL lacks sufficient time to complete the follow-up discovery it says it may need to conduct. In sum, after weighing competing legitimate interests and possible prejudice, this court concludes that MedImmune should be permitted to proceed with the Genzyme subpoena. The parties are admonished, however, to proceed promptly so that the Genzyme-related discovery may be accomplished under existing deadlines set by Judge Fogel. SO ORDERED. Dated: May 17, 2010 HOWARD R. LLOYD

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

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 Aaron Y Huang Dana K Powers David Isaac Berl [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail]

David Isaac Gindler

Gerson Avery Zweifach Gregory Hull

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Jeffrey E. Faucette [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail] Jessamyn Sheli Berniker Paul B. Gaffney [e-mail]

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

[e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail]

Raymond Angelo LaMagna Vernon Michael Winters

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.

3