Pfizer Inc., et. al. v. Mylan Inc. et. al.

Filing 32

ORDER granting 26 Sealed Motion to Transfer. The Clerk is directed to transfer 5 Amended Motion to Quash to the District of Delaware and close this case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed on 5/26/2016. (JR) Modified on 5/26/2016 (AG). [Transferred from Florida Middle on 5/27/2016.]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
PFIZER, INC., WYETH LLC, PFIZER
PHARMACEUTICALS LLC, PF PRISM
C.V. and PFIZER MANUFACTURING
HOLDINGS LLC,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No: 8:16-mc-47-T-17JSS

MYLAN INC., MYLAN LABORATORIES
LIMITED and MYLAN
PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO TRANSFER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Transfer. (S-26.) Plaintiffs
seek to transfer Non-Party Unimark’s Amended Motion to Quash Subpoenas to the District of
Delaware. The Court held a telephonic hearing on the Motion to Transfer on May 26, 2016. For
the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Transfer is granted.
BACKGROUND
This miscellaneous case was initiated in the Middle District of Florida based on the
issuance of subpoenas in connection with a patent infringement case filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Delaware, Pfizer Inc. v. Mylan Inc., No. 1:15-cv-00026-SLR-SRF (D. Del. Jan.
8, 2015). As part of the underlying patent action, Plaintiffs served two subpoenas on non-party
Unimark Remedies Limited (“Unimark”). (Dkt. 1-1.) The subpoenas were issued by the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware and commanded Unimark’s corporative representative
to appear for a deposition in Tampa, Florida. (Dkt. 1-1.) Upon receiving the subpoenas, Unimark
filed a Motion to Quash Subpoenas in the Middle District of Florida, which initiated this

miscellaneous action.1 (Dkt. 5.) Plaintiffs then filed a Motion to Transfer, seeking to transfer the
Amended Motion to Quash to the District of Delaware.
In its Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Amended
Motion to Quash, Unimark indicated that it does not oppose Plaintiffs’ Motion to Transfer, stating
that “Plaintiffs have agreed not to oppose Unimark’s current motion for leave to reply in exchange
for Unimark agreeing not to oppose Plaintiffs’ Motion to Transfer.” (Dkt. 19 at 2.) The Court
held a telephonic hearing on the Motion to Transfer on May 26, 2016, during which Unimark
confirmed its consent to the Motion to Transfer.
APPLICABLE STANDARDS
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, a subpoena must issue from the court where the
action is pending. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(2). However, challenges to a subpoena, including motions
to quash or modify a subpoena, are to be heard by the district court where compliance with the
subpoena is required. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3). Additionally, if the court where compliance is
required did not issue the subpoena, then the court may transfer a subpoena-related motion to the
issuing court if the person subject to the subpoena consents or if the court finds exceptional
circumstances. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f). According to the Advisory Committee, transfer may be
warranted “to avoid disrupting the issuing court’s management of the underlying litigation, as
when that court has already ruled on issues presented by the motion or the same issues are likely
to arise in discovery in many districts.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f) advisory committee’s note to 2013
amendment.

1

Unimark’s Motion to Quash Subpoenas (Dkt. 2) was terminated as moot in light of the filing of an Amended Motion
to Quash Subpoenas (Dkt. 5). (Dkt. 8.)

-2-

ANALYSIS
In this case, the subpoenas that are the subject of this action were issued by the District of
Delaware and require compliance in the Middle District of Florida. As such, the District of
Delaware is the issuing court, and this Court is the compliance court for purposes of Rule 45. As
the compliance court, this Court may transfer the subpoena-related motion, Unimark’s Amended
Motion to Quash Subpoenas, to the District of Delaware upon the consent of the person subject to
the subpoena—Unimark. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f). As Unimark does not oppose Plaintiffs’ Motion
to Transfer, transfer is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(f). Further, upon
review of the pleadings in this case and the relevant filings in the underlying Delaware action, the
Court finds that transfer is warranted “to avoid disrupting the issuing court’s management of the
underlying litigation.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED:
1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Transfer (S-26) is GRANTED.
2. The Clerk is directed to transfer Unimark’s Amended Motion to Quash (Dkt. 5) to the
District of Delaware and close this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on May 26, 2016.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

-3-