In Re Niaspan Antitrust Litigation

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER transferring Motion of Lupin Pharmaceutical, Inc. to quash to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Signed by Judge James K. Bredar on 5/26/2015. (jnls, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
*
*
IN RE NIASPAN ANTITRUST
LITIGATION
*

*

*

*

*
*

*

CIVIL NO. JKB-15-1208
*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Now pending before the Court is the motion of non-party Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to
quash (ECF No. 1) in reference to a subpoena dated January 7, 2015, and directed at Lupin
Pharmaceuticals in relation to multidistrict litigation pending in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania (E.D. Pa. Case No. 13-MD-2460). On May 13, 2015, the Court ordered counsel to
address: (1) whether this Court has authority under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(f) to
transfer this motion to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; and (2) if so, whether this Court
should exercise that authority. (ECF No. 9.) The issues have been briefed (ECF Nos. 10, 11)
and no hearing is required, Local Rule 105.6.
“[A] subpoena must be issued by the court where the underlying action is pending,” (the
“issuing court”), “but challenges to the subpoena are to be heard by the district court
encompassing the place where compliance with the subpoena is required,” (the “compliance
court”). Woods ex rel. U.S. v. SouthernCare, Inc., 303 F.R.D. 405, 406 (N.D. Al. 2014) (citing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(2), (d)(3)(A)).1

The compliance court may, however, transfer a subpoena-

related motion to the issuing court “if the [compliance] court finds exceptional circumstances.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f).

The Advisory Committee note explains when a transfer may be

appropriate:
1

In this case, the District of Maryland is the compliance court, and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is the
issuing court.

[T]ransfer may be warranted in order to avoid disrupting the issuing court’s
management of the underlying litigation, as when . . . the same issues are likely to
arise in discovery in many districts . . . . [but] only if such interests outweigh the
interests of the nonparty served with the subpoena in obtaining local resolution of
the motion.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f) advisory committee’s note.
While familiarity with the underlying action will not always justify a transfer, it is a
compelling factor in “highly complex” cases where the issuing court is aware of “the full scope
of issues involved as well as any implications the resolution of the motion will have on the
underlying litigation.” Wultz v. Bank of China, Ltd., 304 F.R.D. 38, 46 (D.D.C. 2014). Further,
where the underlying action is a multidistrict litigation, transfer may be warranted to avoid
piecemeal rulings by different judges, reaching different conclusions, in resolving identical
disputes. C.f. Woods, 303 F.R.D. at 409 (holding that, “absent multi-district concerns,” the risk
of inconsistent rulings is not an exceptional circumstance) (emphasis added). Here, the issuing
court is already coordinating discovery in the underlying multidistrict action. Further, that court
has already issued subpoenas to entities in various other states (ECF No. 10 at 3), and the issues
raised in Lupin’s motion to quash are likely to arise in these other districts. Such exceptional
circumstances outweigh Lupin’s interest in obtaining local resolution of the motion.
For these reasons, the Court ORDERS that the motion of non-party Lupin
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to quash (ECF No. 1) be TRANSFERRED to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.
DATED this 26th day of May, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

/s/
James K. Bredar
United States District Judge
2