Phigenix, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.

Filing 303

DISCOVERY ORDER RE: 302 . Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 12/7/2016. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/7/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6

Robert A. Gutkin (SBN 119781)
Dr. John Murray (Pro Hac Vice)
ANDREWS KURTH KENYON, LLP
1350 I Street, NW
Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

Gregory L. Porter (Pro Hac Vice)
ANDREWS KURTH KENYON, LLP
8 600 Travis, Suite 4200
Houston, TX 77002
9 Tel: [phone]
10 Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
7

Paul D. Ackerman (Pro Hac Vice)
ANDREWS KURTH KENYON, LLP
450 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
212-850-2858
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

Edward Vincent King, Jr. (SBN 85726)
KING & KELLEHER, LLP
170 Columbus Ave., 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94133
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

11
12

Attorneys for Plaintiff
PHIGENIX, INC.

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15
16
17
18
19
20

Case No. C 15-01238 BLF-NMC

PHIGENIX, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

PHIGENIX, INC.’S STATEMENT RE
ORDER ON DISCOVERY BRIEF;
DISCOVERY ORDER

GENENTECH, INC.,
Defendant.

Judges: Honorable Beth Labson Freeman;
Honorable Nathanael M. Cousins

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

PHIGENIX STATEMENT RE. ORDER ON DISCOVERY BRIEF; DISCOVERY ORDER
CASE NO. C 15-01238 BLF

1

1

Discovery Order

2
3

This Order is issued pursuant to the Court’s Order on Discovery Brief, November 23, 2016,

4

docket number 295 (“Order”).
5
6
7

1.

8

FRD has asserted the privilege over documents identified as document nos. 5, 6, 8, 9 and 22 on the

9

Andrews Kurth privilege log. The parties and MUSC-FRD disagree whether MUSC-FRD’s

10

As to the first issue presented in the Order, the parties have advised the Court that MUSC-

assertion of privilege is timely and, if so, whether any potentially applicable privilege was waived

11

through MUSC-FRD’s disclosure of the documents to Phigenix.
12

In addition, Genentech now argues that the Court’s November 23 Order should also apply

13
14

to documents on the Andrews Kurth Privilege Log beyond those earlier sought in Genentech’s

15

motion, and that such additional documents should be produced as well unless MUSC-FRD asserts

16

that a privilege attaches. Phigenix disagrees that Genentech’s belated argument regarding

17

documents not addressed in its original motion is timely or that the court’s reasoning underpinning

18

the Order is applicable to documents on which Dr. Donald was a party to the communication in
19
20

question.
The parties and, if it wishes, MUSC-FRD, shall submit simultaneous briefs to the Court on

21
22

December 14 on these questions. The briefs shall be no more than 5 pages in length, double-spaced.

23

After receipt of the briefs referred to above, the Court shall rule on the papers or set a hearing.

24
25

2.

As to the second issue, pursuant to the Order, Phigenix has presented Genentech with a

26
27
28

proffer of Dr. Wang’s expected testimony. Genentech now agrees that scope of Dr. Wang’s
testimony set forth in the proffer does not result in a waiver of attorney-client privilege, either

PHIGENIX STATEMENT RE. ORDER ON DISCOVERY BRIEF; DISCOVERY ORDER
CASE NO. C 15-01238 BLF

1

1

express or implied. Accordingly, Genentech’s motion seeking a waiver of privilege (Dkt. No. 280)

2

is DENIED as moot.

4

7

S

UNIT
ED

6

Hon. Nathanael M. Cousins
TED
United StatesGRAN Judge
Magistrate

8

12

ER

Cousins

LI

.
thanael M
Judge Na

A

H

11

RT

10

NO

9

RT
U
O

5

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

R NIA

Dated: December 7, 2016

FO

3

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

PHIGENIX STATEMENT RE. ORDER ON DISCOVERY BRIEF; DISCOVERY ORDER
CASE NO. C 15-01238 BLF

2