Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-md-02521/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-md-02521-21/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

UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL 

WORKERS LOCAL 1776 & 

PARTICIPATING EMPLOYERS HEALTH 

AND WELFARE FUND, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TEIKOKU PHARMA USA, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-md-02521-WHO 

ORDER ON MOTION FOR 

PRODUCTION OR PRECLUSION

Re: Dkt. No. 278

On November 23, 2015, I heard argument on plaintiffs’ Motion for Production or 

Alternatively for Preclusion. Through that motion, plaintiffs ask me to find that defendant Endo 

Pharmaceuticals, Inc. has placed “at issue” the following topics:

(a) Endo’s assessment of the strength of the relevant patents and its expectations 

concerning the outcome of the patent litigations; 

(b) Endo’s reasons, explanations and intentions for the Payments, and its beliefs about 

the impact the Payments would have on competition;

(c) Endo’s beliefs about Watson’s final ANDA approval and an at-risk launch by 

Watson;

(d) Endo’s reasons or incentives, if any, for agreeing to a generic entry date before 

September 2013; and 

(e) Endo’s intention to launch an authorized generic version of Lidoderm. 

Motion at 3.

These topics became at issue, plaintiffs assert, because in its discovery responses in this 

case Endo incorporated a White Paper that it submitted to the FTC defending the Watson

settlement as procompetitive. In that White Paper, Endo repeatedly explains its subjective beliefs 

about the strength of the Watson litigation and the FDA regulatory proceedings in seeking to 

dispel the idea that the settlement was meant to delay generic entry into the market. By placing 

these topics “at issue,” plaintiffs contend that Endo has waived any attorney-client privilege or 

work product doctrine protection for documents and communications regarding them. Plaintiffs 

ask me to either (i) order Endo to produce documents on these topics withheld under the attorneyCase 3:14-md-02521-WHO Document 350 Filed 12/03/15 Page 1 of 3
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

client or work product doctrines, or (ii) require Endo to either elect a waiver for certain topics or 

preclude Endo from relying on its subjective belief and related evidence at summary judgment or 

trial. Dkt. No. 278.

Endo responded at the hearing that it is not placing its subjective beliefs about these topics 

at issue in defending this case. Endo asserts that it will be able to prove its affirmative defenses 

under F.T.C. v. Actavis, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2223 (2013) by relying on objective evidence, such as by 

relying on the same evidence Endo put on in the Watson litigation and expert witness testimony

regarding the same, as well as expert testimony regarding the regulatory proceedings. At oral 

argument, it referred me to the decisions of the Hon. Mitchell S. Goldberg in King Drug Co. of 

Florence v. Cephalon, Inc., No. 2:06-CV-1797 (E.D. Pa.), where in a reverse-payment antitrust 

case Judge Goldberg identified the parameters of defense experts’ testimony regarding defendants’ 

affirmative defense that their reverse-payment settlement was procompetitive. King Drug Co. of 

Florence v. Cephalon, Inc., No. 2:06-CV-1797 (E.D. Pa.), Dkt. Nos. 861, 888. 

In light of the defendants’ assertion of the attorney-client and work product doctrines, 

Judge Goldberg intends to preclude defendants’ experts from offering opinions as to the antitrust 

defendants’ subjective intent as well as testimony on behalf of a patent holder that a reversepayment settlement was procompetitive because it resolved its litigation uncertainty. Dkt. No. 861 

at 3,12-13, 16; Dkt. No. 887 at 40-41 (excluding expert testimony that he would have counseled 

generic defendant to have settled Paragraph IV litigation). Judge Goldberg would allow defense 

experts to testify as to objective economic analysis of the settlement agreements, which 

presumably is the path defendants intend to follow in this case.1 Id. at 12; see also Dkt. No. 888 at 

2-3 (allowing expert testimony as to Hatch-Waxman administrative framework, legal standards 

applicable to Paragraph IV litigation, and arguments made by parties in Paragraph IV litigation for 

the limited purpose of demonstrating on ex ante basis the strength of the patent and that patent 

holder’s Paragraph IV positions were reasonable at the time of settlement). 

 

1

Judge Goldberg’s decisions are somewhat tentative depending upon how the trial proceeds and, 

in part, upon what the evidence plaintiffs introduce at trial. Dkt. 887 at 12. However, Judge 

Goldberg allowed the Generic Defendants’ experts to testify regarding how litigation certainty 

provides pro-competitive benefits for those defendants because that consideration does not 

implicate anticompetitive motivations. Dkt. 861 at 17.

Case 3:14-md-02521-WHO Document 350 Filed 12/03/15 Page 2 of 3
3

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

The parameters outlined by Judge Goldberg seem sensible. At this early juncture in this

case, and in light of Endo’s express disclaimer of any intent to rely on its subjective belief, I will 

not find that Endo has broadly placed at issue unidentified documents and communications that 

would normally be protected by the attorney-client or work product doctrines. Plaintiffs may, as

this case goes forward, reassert the waiver issue with respect to specifically identified documents 

or communications so that I may rule on discrete waiver assertions.

I do not agree, however, with Endo’s characterization of the White Paper as merely relying 

on the public record and objective evidence. As an example, Endo repeatedly refers to its 

confidence related to various litigation-related matters. It is inconsistent for Endo to incorporate 

its entire White Paper in response to a discovery request and for it now to assert that it will not 

rely on its subjective beliefs. Accordingly, by December 15, 2015, Endo will serve an amended 

discovery response that redacts from the White Paper all statements of subjective belief on which 

it does not rely. 

To be clear, defendants will generally be entitled to assert the attorney-client privilege and 

work product protection for documents and communications regarding the Watson litigation and 

settlement only if they continue to avoid reliance on their subjective beliefs, including expert 

testimony about their subjective beliefs, in proving their affirmative defenses. Also, along the 

lines of Judge Goldberg’s rulings, defense experts will not be able to opine about Endo’s litigation

uncertainty. Nor will the experts be able to opine on what they would have advised Endo or 

Watson to do regarding the status of the Paragraph IV litigation. Defense experts will otherwise 

be able to opine about the procompetitive merits of the settlement. 

For the reasons discussed, plaintiffs’ Motion for Production or Alternatively for Preclusion 

is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 3, 2015

______________________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-md-02521-WHO Document 350 Filed 12/03/15 Page 3 of 3