Genentech, Inc. v. Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania

Filing 148

ORDER Approving Stipulation (Dkt. No. 141). Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 3/11/2011. (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/11/2011)

Genentech, Inc. v. Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania

Doc. 148

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

M. PATRICIA THAYER (SBN 90818) [e-mail] SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 California Street San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] JEFFREY P. KUSHAN (pro hac vice) [e-mail] SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1501 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] SAMUEL N. TIU (SBN 216291) [e-mail] TASHICA T. WILLIAMS (SBN 256449) [e-mail] SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, California 90013 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone]

ROBERT A. VAN NEST (SBN 84065) [e-mail] ASHOK RAMANI (SBN 200020) [e-mail] DAN E. JACKSON (SBN 216091) [e-mail] SARAH B. FAULKNER (SBN 263857) [e-mail] KEKER & VAN NEST LLP 710 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1704 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant GENENTECH, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION GENENTECH, INC., ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No: 5:10-CV-2037-LHK (PSG)

20 Plaintiff, 21 vs. 22 23 24 Defendant. 25 26 27 28 THE TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, a Pennsylvania non-profit corporation,

FINAL JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING COURT'S NOVEMBER 22 ORDER Hearing Date: TBD Time: TBD Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh

FINAL STIP. RE COURT'S NOV. 22 ORDER CASE NO. 5:10-CV-2037-LHK (PSG)
Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

WHEREAS on March 1, 2011, plaintiff Genentech, Inc. ("Genentech") and defendant the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania ("the University") filed a Seventh Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order to Extend the Deadline for Genentech to File Objections to the Court's November 22 Order (Dkt. No. 113) to March 8, 2011; and WHEREAS the parties wanted the deadline extension to discuss whether there is a way to limit Genentech's production of regulatory materials, other than the BLA Submissions (as that term is used in the Court's November 22 Order), to avoid the production of irrelevant materials; and WHEREAS, the parties have reached a final resolution concerning these regulatory materials; THE PARTIES THEREFORE AGREE as follows: 1. Genentech will make a rolling production of the materials listed in the regulatory index provided to counsel for the University of Pennsylvania on December 15, 2010, with the production to be completed by March 31, 2011. 2. Genentech will produce the records on a hard drive for inspection, with a proper designation under the Protective Order in this action. Genentech will not OCR or Bates label individual documents. The records will be organized and archived in a manner that will permit counsel for the University of Pennsylvania to identify and retrieve the materials listed in the December 15, 2010 index. 3. If, after inspection, the University of Pennsylvania determines that it desires to use any of the records in this litigation, counsel will identify such records to counsel for Genentech, who will ensure that they are Bates labeled and promptly will produce them to the University of Pennsylvania in Bates labeled form. No records may be used as evidence by the University of Pennsylvania until they are identified to counsel and receive a Bates label. The University of Pennsylvania, further, will reimburse Genentech for one-half of the actual reasonable cost of having its vendor process all records that must be processed according to this paragraph.

FINAL STIP. RE COURT'S NOV. 22 ORDER CASE NO. 5:10-CV-2037-LHK (PSG)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

4.

Any documents that are protected by attorney client privilege or work product immunity, but are inadvertently produced during the production process, will be returned to Genentech immediately upon written notice to counsel for the University of Pennsylvania that such inadvertent production has occurred. Return under this paragraph does not relieve Genentech of the obligation to provide a privilege log for such documents nor limit the University's ability to challenge any privilege assertion on any ground other than their inadvertent production as part of the process provided for herein.

5.

This production shall constitute compliance with Document Request No. 36 propounded by the University of Pennsylvania, subject to any supplementation required under Federal Rules.

SO STIPULATED: Respectfully submitted,

Dated: March 7, 2011

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

By:

/s/ M. PATRICIA THAYER

Attorneys for Plaintiff GENENTECH, INC.

2
FINAL STIP. RE COURT'S NOV. 22 ORDER CASE NO. 5:10-CV-2037-LHK (PSG)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Dated: March 7, 2011

IRELL & MANELLA LLP

By:

/s/ GARY N. FRISCHLING1

Attorneys for Defendant THE TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

1

27 28

Pursuant to General Order 45(X), the filer of this document hereby attests that concurrence in the filing of the document has been obtained from Gary N. Frischling.

3
FINAL STIP. RE COURT'S NOV. 22 ORDER CASE NO. 5:10-CV-2037-LHK (PSG)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 11, 2011 LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE JOINT STIPULATION CASE NO. 5:10-CV-2037-LHK (PSG)
SF1 1674388V.1