Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-00355/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-00355-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

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

BAUSCH HEALTH US, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

ECI PHARMACEUTICALS LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:18-cv-00355-RS (KAW)

ORDER REGARDING 2/14/20 JOINT 

DISCOVERY LETTER #1 

CONCERNING DEFENDANT'S 

PRODUCTION TIME PERIOD

Re: Dkt. No. 158

On February 14, 2020, the parties filed a motion to file under seal and a joint discovery 

letter concerning the time period for production of documents. (See Mot. to File Under Seal, Dkt. 

No. 158; Joint Letter, Dkt. No. 158-4.) The Court granted the motion to file under seal. 

Plaintiff Bausch Health US, LLC (“Bausch”) propounded requests for production of 

documents on Defendant ECI Pharmaceuticals, LLC (“ECI”) with a relevant time period of 

January 1, 2015 to present. (Joint Letter at 2.) Despite this time period, Bausch claims that ECI 

unilaterally restricted its production to documents from prior to May 2018 with the exception of a 

certain category of documents and the results of ECI’s FOIA requests. (Joint Letter at 3.) Plaintiff 

also argues that it requires discovery to defend against ECI’s counterclaims, because “[d]ocuments 

from 2018 and 2019 are critical to understanding the impact, if any, of Bausch Health’s alleged 

conduct on ECI’s business and its customer relationships.” (Joint Letter at 3.) As a compromise, 

Bausch offered to set September 1, 2019 as the cut-off date for the relevant time period, which 

was rejected by ECI. (Joint Letter at 2.) 

In opposition, ECI claims that it has already produced a significant number of documents, 

and that any further production would not be proportional under Federal Rule of Procedure 26, 

because the bulk of the documents had already been produced during the International Trade 

Case 3:18-cv-00355-RS Document 170 Filed 03/06/20 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Commission (“ITC”) proceedings, which Bausch commenced against ECI and later voluntarily 

dismissed. (See Joint Letter at 2, 5.) ECI argues that, “because the ITC Complaint had very 

similar allegations as in this case, and a full, albeit very expedited, discovery process had been 

carried out in the ITC, [Plaintiff’s] motion should be denied.” (Joint Letter at 5.)

The Court disagrees. First, as argued by Plaintiff, the ITC proceeding’s discovery was 

limited to domestic industry and injury, and the entire time allotted to fact discovery was only 

approximately six weeks. (Joint Letter at 4.) Further, since the voluntary dismissal of the ITC 

proceeding, the instant case was filed, and Defendant is now asserting counterclaims against 

Bausch, from which Bausch is entitled to defend itself. Moreover, Bausch argues that ECI has 

propounded 80 document requests in this case, “making clear that ECI does not consider the ITC 

discovery to have been comprehensive or sufficient to address the merits of this case.” (Joint 

Letter at 4.) This is persuasive.

In light of the foregoing, while ECI need not provide responsive documents that are 

duplicative of documents already produced, it is required to provide all other documents

responsive to Plaintiff’s requests for the relevant time period of January 1, 2015 to September 1, 

2019, and shall do so within two weeks of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2020

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:18-cv-00355-RS Document 170 Filed 03/06/20 Page 2 of 2