Gilead Sciences, Inc. et al v. Safe Chain Solutions, LLC et al

Filing 1115

ORDER denying 1094 Safe Chain Parties' Motion for Disclosure of Grand Jury Information. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr on 6/13/2023. (Reyes, Ramon)

Case 1:21-cv-04106-AMD-RER Document 1115 Filed 06/13/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 21352

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________
No 21-CV-4106 (MKB) (RER)

_____________________

GILEAD SCIENCES, INC., ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
VERSUS

SAFE CHAIN SOLUTIONS LLC, ET AL.,
Defendants.
___________________
SUMMARY ORDER
June 13, 2023
___________________

RAMON E. REYES, JR., U.S.M.J.:
Before the Court is the motion of Safe Chain Solutions, LLC, Charles Boyd, and Patrick
Boyd (collectively, “Safe Chain Parties”) for “an Order compelling plaintiffs Gilead [Sciences,
Inc., et al. (collectively, “Gilead”)] to respond fully to requests for information exchanged between
Gilead and law enforcement pertaining to the Safe Chain Parties.” (ECF No. 1094 at 4).1 That
motion is denied.2

1

Specifically, the Safe Chain Parties seek from Gilead: (1) “’All Documents Concerning the Safe Chain Parties that
[Gilead] received from any government or quasi-government agency’ (RFP No. 4)”; (2) “’All Communications or
Documents that [Gilead] exchanged with any law enforcement or governmental investigative authorities Concerning
the Safe Chain Parties’ alleged involvement in the counterfeiting of Gilead Drugs’ (RFP No. 74)”; (2) “’All
Documents Concerning or reflecting law enforcement investigations Concerning the sale of Gilead Drugs to which
the Safe Chain Parties are subjects or targets’ (RFP No. 75)”; and (4) a description of “all Communications You have
had with any law enforcement or governmental investigative authorities Concerning the Safe Chain Parties’ alleged
involvement in the counterfeiting of Gilead Drugs’ (Interrog. No. 4)”. (ECF No. 1094 at 4-5, Exhibit A).

2

The Court has reviewed supplemental letter briefs on this issue (ECF Nos. 1108, 1111), and has conducted an in
camera review of the withheld documents and communications (ECF No. 1114 (SEALED)).

1

Case 1:21-cv-04106-AMD-RER Document 1115 Filed 06/13/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 21353

While it is true that a court has the authority to compel the disclosure of documents and
information submitted in response to a grand jury subpoena, such disclosure should be compelled
only where the information sought is relevant to the case at bar. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). That
Gilead may have provided certain documents to the government in response to various grand jury
subpoenas is simply not “relevant to any party’s claim or defense” in this case. Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(1). Indeed, the Safe Chain Parties do not seek this information directly to defend against
Gilead’s claims, but to determine whether to assert at deposition the Fifth Amendment privilege
against self-incrimination. In other words, the Safe Chain Parties are not concerned in the first
instance with what information Gilead has that implicates them in the purportedly unlawful
misbranding scheme, but whether Gilead has provided that information to the government. As long
as Gilead discloses the underlying documents and information in response to the Safe Chain
Parties’ other interrogatories and document requests, that will suffice.3 If Gilead needs additional
time to produce said documents and information, and the Safe Chain Parties need additional time
to review said production before appearing for deposition, the Court will entertain a reasonable
request for an extension of discovery.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Safe Chain Parties’ motion is denied.

/s/ Ramon E. Reyes, Jr.
RAMON E. REYES, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: June 13, 2023
Brooklyn, NY

3

Gilead cannot withhold documents and information responsive to the Safe Chain Parties’ other interrogatories and
document requests simply because that information was also provided to the government in response to the various
grand jury subpoenas.

2