XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, LC

Filing 277

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 12/3/14. The Motion for Discovery 254 is GRANTED; Trans Ova shall produce its HSR Act 4(c) submission, on or before 12/10/2014; and XY, may reopen the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Trans Ova to inquire further about Trans Ova's HSR Act 4(c) filing and related matters. (bsimm, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
Civil Action No. 13-cv-00876-WJM-BNB
XY, LLC,
Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant,
v.
TRANS OVA GENETICS, L.C.,
Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff,
v.
INGURAN, LLC,
Counterclaim Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter arises on the plaintiff’s Supplemental Motion for Leave to Serve and
Pursue Limited Discovery [Doc. # 254] (the “Motion for Discovery”). I held a hearing on the
motion this morning and made rulings on the record, which are incorporated here. The Motion
for Discovery is GRANTED.
I previously allowed XY to take discovery concerning filings made under the Hart-ScottRodino Act in connection with the acquisition of Trans Ova by Intrexon. Intrexon refused to
produce responsive documents, moving to quash XY’s subpoena on improper grounds, and also
refused without justification to identify its ultimate parent, whom Intrexon argued exclusively
possessed responsive documents. By a separate order, I denied Intrexon’s Motion to Quash and
required that it produce responsive documents by December 10, 2014.

Also during this morning’s hearing, counsel for Trans Ova disclosed that Trans Ova
made an HSR Act 4(c) filing in connection with the acquisition by Intrexon, but those documents
were not produced separately from Trans Ova’s general discovery responses. Nor were any
forms required to be submitted under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act or the cover letter transmitting
materials produced.
Intrexon’s conduct in hiding the identity of its ultimate parent and Trans Ova’s failure to
produce all HSR Act 4(c) materials constitute good cause to extend the discovery period to allow
XY to conduct the addition discovery requested. XY has acted diligently in attempting to obtain
the requested discovery, only to be thwarted by the misconduct of Intrexon and Trans Ova.
The requested discovery is obviously and directly relevant to Trans Ova’s
monopolization claims, including Trans Ova’s assertion that sexed semen is a relevant market
apart from conventional semen.
IT IS ORDERED:
(1)

The Motion for Discovery [Doc. # 254] is GRANTED;

(2)

Trans Ova shall produce its HSR Act 4(c) submission, in its entirety, on or before

December 10, 2014; and
(3)

XY, at its option and at a date and time as the parties may agree, may reopen the

Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Trans Ova to inquire further about Trans Ova’s HSR Act 4(c) filing
and related matters.
Dated December 3, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge
2