Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-04057/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-04057-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

Case No. 5:13-cv-04057-BLF

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GILEAD SCIENCES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

MERCK & CO, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:13-cv-04057-BLF

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

COMPEL

(Re: Docket No. 158)

Proportionality in discovery under the Federal Rules is nothing new. Old Rule 

26(b)(2)(C)(iii) was clear that a court could limit discovery when burden outweighed benefit, and 

old Rule 26(g)(1)(B)(iii) was clear that a lawyer was obligated to certify that discovery served was 

not unduly burdensome. New Rule 26(b)(1), implemented by the December 1, 2015 amendments, 

simply takes the factors explicit or implicit in these old requirements to fix the scope of all 

discovery demands in the first instance. 

What will change—hopefully—is mindset. No longer is it good enough to hope that the 

information sought might lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In fact, the old language 

to that effect is gone. Instead, a party seeking discovery of relevant, non-privileged information 

must show, before anything else, that the discovery sought is proportional to the needs of the 

case.

1

 The present dispute offers a good example of the wisdom of the Advisory Committee on 

Civil Rules in elevating proportionality in defining the scope of permissible discovery. 

Merck asserts that Gilead infringes two of its patents to a certain kind of nucleoside 

 

1

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

Case 5:13-cv-04057-BLF Document 211 Filed 01/13/16 Page 1 of 4
2

Case No. 5:13-cv-04057-BLF

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

analog.2 Among other things, Gilead says it was the one to conceive and reduce to practice the 

inventions, in 2003, in a compound named PSI-6130.3 And so a key issue in this case is what did 

Gilead synthesize and when did it know it.

As part of a related litigation in Canada, Gilead’s expert Dr. Christopher Seeger produced a 

photograph of various tubes of compounds.4 At least one of the tube labels lists a molecular 

weight of 259.2, the weight of PSI-6130.5 In a later deposition in this case, Seeger testified that he 

got the compounds before 2003 from the founder of an entity later acquired by Gilead.6 Given the 

importance of figuring out when Gilead first synthesized the disputed compound, Merck 

immediately demanded further production of further information about the tubes and their 

contents, including the tubes themselves.7 At this point, Merck would seem to be on solid ground 

in making its demands.

But lots of compounds share the same molecular weight. In fact, Merck’s own patents list 

different nucleosides that share the same molecular weight.8 Most importantly, Merck has long 

had information from Gilead that confirms that the tubes in question held PSI-0194 and PSI-1834, 

two entirely different nucleosides from PSI-6130.

9

This information includes the laboratory 

notebook from the chemist at the Gilead acquisition that identifies the compounds as PSI-0194 

 

2

See Docket No. 158 at 4-5.

3

See id.

4

See id. at 8.

5

See id.

6

See id. at 9.

7

See id. at 11. Merck also demanded a further deposition of another witness, Dr. John Secrist, but 

has since dropped that demand. See id. at 23; Docket No. 180-4 at 10-11. 

8

See Docket No. 173 at 16 n.57.

9

See id. at 12

Case 5:13-cv-04057-BLF Document 211 Filed 01/13/16 Page 2 of 4
3

Case No. 5:13-cv-04057-BLF

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

and not PSI-6130.10 Gilead also provided a further letter from Seeger’s source that confirmed that 

the compounds were not PSI-6130, the compound Merck sought.11 Not satisfied, Merck presses 

on, protesting that it should not have to take Gilead’s word as to what exactly is in those tubes. 

Merck’s demands are exactly the type of disproportionate demands that Rule 26(b)(1) 

proscribes. Sure, it’s possible that Gilead’s evidence confirming the compounds are not PSI-6130 

is false and even concocted. But Merck offers no real evidence that this is the case, and as the 

court recently explained in denying a motion to compel by Gilead, “[w]ithout more specific 

information triggering some reason for doubt, the Court must take the producing party . . . at its 

word.”

12

 

And so that leaves Gilead in the position of having to produce discovery on all sorts of 

compounds that bear no indication of any nexus to the disputes in this case. This is untenable. It 

would be like requiring GM to produce discovery on Buicks and Chevys in a patent case about 

Cadillacs simply because all three happen to be cars. In the absence of any reason to doubt the 

proof Gilead has tendered about the identity of the disputed compounds, and given the cost and 

potential delay introduced by the requested production, Merck’s request is precisely the kind of 

disproportionate discovery that Rule 26—old or new—was intended to preclude.13 

Merck’s motion to compel is DENIED.

 

10 See Docket No. 159-40.

11 See Docket no. 173 at 3-4.

12 Docket No. 210 at 8 (quoting Aristocrat Techs. v. Int’l Game Tech., Case No. C 06-03717 

RMW (RS), 2009 WL 3573327, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2009)).

13 Merck also argues that the requested discovery is relevant to impeaching Seeger’s credibility. 

See Docket No. 180-4 at 7. However, in making this point, Merck refers to documents produced 

by Gilead to point out inconsistencies with Seeger’s deposition testimony. See id. In other words, 

Merck’s papers show that it already has the material it needs to challenge Seeger’s credibility, and 

the further discovery it seeks would be cumulative and disproportionate to the needs of the case.

Case 5:13-cv-04057-BLF Document 211 Filed 01/13/16 Page 3 of 4
4

Case No. 5:13-cv-04057-BLF

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2016

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:13-cv-04057-BLF Document 211 Filed 01/13/16 Page 4 of 4