United States of America v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. et al

Filing 245

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. The parties shall submit a conforming protective order within seven days for the Courts signature. Accordingly, the Motion for Phased Discovery is DENIED. The parties shall complete discovery as specified in the Courts Order of November 20, 2017 (Doc. No. 234. The Court will hold a status conference on February 15, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. 244 Motion Phased discovery (Simeone, Maria)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
__________________________________________
)
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and
)
THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel .
)
DR. ANTONI NARGOL and
)
DR. DAVID LANGTON
)
)
Plaintiffs-Relators,
)
)
v.
)
Civil Action No. 12-10896-LTS
)
DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC., DEPUY, INC., )
and JOHNSON & JOHNSON SERVICES, INC., )
)
Defendants.
)
)
ORDER
December 14, 2017
SOROKIN, D.J.
The Court has reviewed the proposed Protective Order (Doc. No. 243-1) and the parties’
related Joint Supplemental Discovery Statement (Doc. No. 242) explaining the language upon
which they disagree. The Court rejects Relators’ additional language for paragraph 5; adopts the
timing proposed by Defendants for paragraph 7 (and suggests that the parties only litigate
confidentiality when the designation impairs a party from actually using a document in a manner
necessary for this litigation); rejects the language appearing in paragraph 12; adopts Relators’
proposed additional language for paragraph 13(b); and adopts Defendants’ version of paragraph
14(b), though the Relators may make specific application if the language actually prevents them
from fairly presenting their case as to a given type of expert. The parties shall submit a
conforming protective order within seven days for the Court’s signature.

In light of the Joint Supplemental Discovery Statement, the default discovery limits
established by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply in this case, except that: (1) Relators
may take up to fifteen depositions; and (2) each side may serve up to six document requests.
With respect to Defendants’ Motion for Phased Discovery (Doc. No. 244), the Court is
not persuaded, based on the assertions in Relators’ Second Amended Complaint and in
Defendants’ Motion, that this case merits prioritization of the public disclosure bar and statutory
bar questions for purposes of forming “a realistic assessment of the case” pursuant to Local
Rules 26.3 and 16.1(d)(1)(b). At the same time, further delay in proceeding with full discovery
in this matter is unwarranted and would unduly prejudice the Relators, in light of the appeal to
the First Circuit and the longevity of this case. Accordingly, the Motion for Phased Discovery is
DENIED. The parties shall complete discovery as specified in the Court’s Order of November
20, 2017 (Doc. No. 234). 1 The Court will hold a status conference on February 15, 2018 at 2:00
p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Leo T. Sorokin
Leo T. Sorokin
United States District Judge

1

The Court established June 30, 2018 as the deadline for fact discovery and invited the parties to propose joint or
separate subsidiary fact discovery deadlines. Besides Defendants’ proposal for an initial phase of discovery, the
parties proposed no additional deadlines in their Joint Supplemental Discovery Statement.
2