Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-md-02521/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-md-02521-23/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

IN RE LIDODERM ANTITRUST 

LITIGATION

Case No. 14-md-02521-WHO 

ORDER CONCERNING CLAW BACKS

During the monthly telephonic status conference call on December 8, 2015, plaintiffs 

raised the inefficiencies and expense caused by defendants’ repeated assertions of their right to 

claw back privileged documents pursuant to the Protective Order and Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 26. Plaintiffs, understandably, would like certainty concerning the documents that they

may use in this litigation, and requested that I set a date certain beyond which defendants may not 

claw back documents. Defendants described again the pains they have taken to identify privileged 

documents, not to mention the substantial expense in doing so, and the difficulties stemming from 

the amount of privileged material from the Watson litigation, the volume of documents that are in 

Japanese, and the independent review process of the defendant companies with a common interest 

privilege as to certain documents. Neither side had briefed this issue.

I will not set a hard deadline regarding claw backs at this time. It appears that the 

defendants have worked diligently to reduce the need to claw back documents but I would not be 

surprised if good cause exists in the future to claw back others. I also assume that such a need will 

be rare and will diminish over time. I can imagine imposing a hard deadline later in the case; 

indeed, it is hard to imagine the reverse because parties need certainty in trial preparation and 

important motion practice. 

Case 3:14-md-02521-WHO Document 357 Filed 12/09/15 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

Defendants suggested that I rule that a party’s failure to claw back a document will not 

create a subject matter waiver with respect to the privilege of other documents like or related to 

the non-clawed back document. I will not issue a general ruling of that sort. However, I 

encourage the parties to reach pragmatic agreements, either on a document by document basis or 

that reach more broadly, to allow discovery to proceed as expeditiously as is reasonable. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 9, 2015

______________________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-md-02521-WHO Document 357 Filed 12/09/15 Page 2 of 2