Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02442/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02442-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

3:17-cv-2442-WQH-NLS

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re: 

SUBPOENA ON SORRENTO 

THERAPEUTICS, INC. AND 

QIANGZHONG MA

Case No.: 3:17-cv-2442-WQH-NLS

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO ENFORCE 

SUBPOENAS 

[ECF No. 1]

IMMUNOMEDICS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROGER WILLIAMS MEDICAL 

CENTER, et al.,

Defendants.

Underlying action pending in the 

District Court of New Jersey: 

Case No. 2:15-cv-04526-JLL-SCM

Before the Court is plaintiff, Immunomedics, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”), Motion to 

Enforce Subpoenas Served on Third Parties Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. (“Sorrento”) and 

Dr. Qiangzhong Ma (“Dr. Ma”). ECF No. 1. Plaintiff asks the Court to transfer this 

motion to the District Court of New Jersey, where the underlying action is pending, 

pursuant to Rule 45(f). In the alternative, Plaintiff seeks to compel third parties Sorrento 

and Dr. Ma to comply with the document and deposition subpoenas previously served by 

Plaintiff. ECF No. 1-2. This Court set a briefing schedule. ECF No. 2. Both third 

Case 3:17-cv-02442-WQH-NLS Document 9 Filed 02/08/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 13
2

3:17-cv-2442-WQH-NLS

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

parties, Sorrento and Dr. Ma, filed oppositions. ECF Nos. 4, 5. Plaintiff filed a reply. 

ECF No. 8. 

After consideration of the papers and arguments submitted by the parties, this 

Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s motion to enforce 

subpoenas. 

I. BACKGROUND

This case arises from the alleged misappropriation of property via a series of 

transactions, including Material Transfer Agreements and the creation of various shell 

corporations, being litigated in the District of New Jersey. ECF No. 1-2 at 4-5. Relevant 

to the instant motion are the following facts as set forth by the parties. 

Plaintiff is a biopharmaceutical company with interests in certain “Research 

Materials.”

1

 Id. at 4. Plaintiff entered into a series of agreements with the Defendants2in 

the underlying action permitting experimentation with the Research Materials, but 

restricting the use of “Research Products.” Id. Plaintiff alleges that in order to convert 

and/or misappropriate Plaintiff’s property, Defendants in the underlying action created 

two shell corporations, “CARgenix” and “BDL Products, Inc.,” to “serve as repositories 

for the Research Materials and/or Research Products.” Id. at 7-8. The Research 

Materials/Products were then “contributed” to CARgenix and BDL Products, Inc. ECF 

No. 4 at 4. 

Following the contribution of the Research Products, in August 2015, the stock of 

BDL Products, Inc. was sold to TNK, a subsidiary of Sorrento. ECF No. 1-2 at 5, ECF 

No. 4 at 4. In addition, TNK agreed to indemnify Dr. Ma against claims arising from 

these transactions.

3

 ECF No. 1-2 at 5. The targets of the third party subpoenas at issue 

here have significant ties to the alleged shell corporations: Sorrento shares a manager 

 

1 Specifically, “anti-CEA, MN-14.” ECF No. 1-2 at 7. 

2 The Defendants in the underlying action are Roger Williams Medical Center (“RWMC”), Dr. 

Junghans, and Dr. Katz. 

3 The Court notes the initial complaint was filed in June 2015. See DNJ Docket, ECF No. 1.

Case 3:17-cv-02442-WQH-NLS Document 9 Filed 02/08/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 13
3

3:17-cv-2442-WQH-NLS

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

and principal place of business with CARgenix, and Dr. Ma is one of the two owners of 

BDL Products, Inc. ECF No. 1-2 at 8. 

TNK and Sorrento were, at one time, named as parties to the underlying action but 

were dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. ECF No. 1-2 at 6; ECF No. 4 at 4. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff pursued information from TNK, Sorrento, and now Dr. Ma, as 

non-parties pursuant to Rule 45. ECF No. 4 at 5-6; see also, 3:16-cv-1527-BAS-KSC 

(Motion to Enforce Subpoena issued to TNK Therapeutics, Inc., filed June 17, 2016); 

3:16-cv-1531-BAS-KSC (Motion to Enforce Subpoena issued to Sorrento Therapeutics, 

Inc., filed June 17, 2016); 3:17-cv-1039-AJB-BLM (Motion to Enforce Subpoena issued 

to Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. and TNK Therapeutics, Inc. filed May 19, 2017). TNK 

and Sorrento have produced some documents in response to the prior subpoenas, but the

parties reached agreement regarding the prior motions to compel in light of a thenupcoming settlement conference and mediation. ECF No. 1-2 at 8. The settlement 

conference and mediation were both unsuccessful. Id. 

Towards the end of discovery in the underlying action, Plaintiff served additional 

subpoenas on Sorrento and Dr. Ma. ECF No. 4 at 7. Sorrento and Dr. Ma served written 

objections and the parties began a meet and confer process, but were unable to reach 

agreement. Id. 

Plaintiff filed the instant a motion to compel enforcement of various subpoenas

issued to Sorrento and Dr. Ma. At issue in this motion are the following subpoenas:4

(1) March 6, 2017 Subpoena for Documents to Sorrento; (ECF No. 1-11)

(2) October 20, 2017 Subpoena to Testify to Sorrento; (ECF No. 2-1, Exhibit 2)

(3) October 30, 2017 Subpoena to Testify at Deposition to Dr. Ma; (ECF No. 1-17)

(4) October 30, 2017 Subpoena for Documents to Dr. Ma; (ECF No. 1-18)

 

4 The other subpoenas against Sorrento and other discovery that may be outstanding against other thirdparties or the underlying Defendants are not at issue before this Court. 

Case 3:17-cv-02442-WQH-NLS Document 9 Filed 02/08/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 13
4

3:17-cv-2442-WQH-NLS

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

II. MOTION TO TRANSFER ENFORCEMENT TO DISTRICT COURT OF 

NEW JERSEY

As a threshold issue, the parties dispute whether this Court should rule on this 

motion or whether the motion should be transferred to the district where the underlying 

litigation takes place, the District of New Jersey. 

A. Legal Standard

Subpoenas are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Rule of Procedure 45. Under 

this Rule, if compliance with the subpoena is required outside the district from where the 

subpoena issued and the underlying action takes place, then the compliance court may 

“transfer a motion under this rule to the issuing court if the person subject to the 

subpoena consents or if the court finds exceptional circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f). 

Here, the parties subject to the subpoena, Sorrento and Dr. Ma, have not consented to 

transfer, so transfer may be granted only the court finds “exceptional circumstances.”

The advisory notes to Rule 45 provide some guidance as to when exceptional 

circumstances may exist:

The prime concern should be avoiding burdens on local nonparties subject to 

subpoenas, and it should not be assumed that the issuing court is in a 

superior position to resolve subpoena-related motions. In some 

circumstances, however, transfer may be warranted in order to avoid 

disrupting the issuing court’s management of the underlying litigation, as 

when that court has already ruled on issues presented by the motion or the 

same issues are likely to arise in discovery in many districts. Transfer is 

appropriate only if such interests outweigh the interests of the nonparty 

served with the subpoena in obtaining local resolution of the motion.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 Advisory Committee’s Notes (2013). The proponent of the transfer 

bears the burden to show that exceptional circumstances exist. Id. Ultimately, whether 

to transfer the motion is at the discretion of the court where compliance is required. 

Youtoo Techs., LLC v. Twitter, Inc., No. 17-MC-80006-JSC, 2017 WL 431751, at *1 

(N.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2017). 

///

Case 3:17-cv-02442-WQH-NLS Document 9 Filed 02/08/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 13
5

3:17-cv-2442-WQH-NLS

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

B. Discussion

First, Plaintiff argues that exceptional circumstances exist here because Judge

Mannion in the District of New Jersey has familiarity with the claims at issue and the

factual history of the case. ECF No. 1-2 at 11. However, this is a concern that exists in 

almost every such motion and cannot alone be sufficient to constitute an “extraordinary 

circumstance.” Personalized Media Commc'ns, LLC v. Top Victory Elecs. (Taiwan) Co., 

No. 16-MC-80122-SK, 2016 WL 8542561, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2016) (“As to the 

issue of judicial economy, such a risk would be inherent in any motion to compel 

determined by an issuing court.”); Isola USA Corp. v. Taiwan Union Tech. Corp., No. 

12-CV-01361-SLG, 2015 WL 5934760, at *3 (D. Mass. June 18, 2015) (“[T]here is no 

question that the [issuing court] is more familiar with the procedural and substantive 

aspects of the underlying patent litigation. However, that cannot be what Congress meant 

when it required a finding of exceptional circumstances, otherwise the exception would 

swallow the rule. As a general matter, a Rule 45 subpoena-related motion will always be 

resolved by a court less familiar with the underlying litigation.”). 

Second, Plaintiff argues that this motion should be transferred in light of the 

similar motion to compel that had been filed against Paul Hastings in the Northern 

District of California, which has been transferred to the District of New Jersey. ECF No. 

8 at 3-4. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that transfer would avoid the risk of inconsistent 

rulings between this motion and the other pending motions in New Jersey related to Paul 

Hastings and Dr. Junghans, because all these motions implicate whether a common 

interest privilege exists between these parties and third-parties. Id. The common interest 

privilege issue seems to implicate at least Request No. 1 from Plaintiff’s document 

requests to Sorrento. See ECF No. 4 at 11. Beyond this one potential point of overlap, 

however, Plaintiff does not take the position that the specific requests for documents or 

topics here are identical or substantially similar to the requests pending in front of the 

New Jersey court. Rather than finding an extraordinary circumstance here requiring 

transfer, the Court notes that it can resolve any potential for inconsistency by leaving the 

Case 3:17-cv-02442-WQH-NLS Document 9 Filed 02/08/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 13
6

3:17-cv-2442-WQH-NLS

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

issue of the appropriateness of the common interest privilege to Judge Mannion to decide 

and ordering the parties to adhere to Judge Mannion’s ruling, whatever it may be, as they 

engage in the further discovery as outlined in the rest of this order.

5

 

Plaintiff also argues that the resolution of this motion will impact the discovery 

schedule in the underlying action. ECF No. 1 at 11. This argument is moot in light of 

Judge Mannion’s ruling on January 22, 2018 that “the remaining limited third-party 

discovery shall be completed concurrently with expert discovery to the fullest extent 

practical.” DNJ case, ECF. No. 182. Judge Mannion was made previously aware of the 

instant motion in this Court (see DNJ case, ECF No. 174) and thus, he has already ruled 

on the length of extension of third-party discovery with knowledge of this motion. 

Finally, Plaintiff argues that Sorrento and Dr. Ma have not demonstrated any 

burden they would suffer if this motion were transferred to the issuing court. ECF No. 8 

at 6. “The lack of a burden imposed on the nonparty by transfer is not in itself an 

exceptional circumstance and is insufficient to warrant transfer.” Woods v. Southern

Care, Inc., 303 F.R.D. 405, 407 (N.D. Ala. 2014). Plaintiff suggests that the “primary 

factor” to consider is the burden imposed on the local parties and that lack of burden 

would weigh heavily in favor of transfer. However, the Advisory Notes to Rule 45 

clarify that “[t]he prime concern should be avoiding burdens on local nonparties subject 

to subpoenas.” Thus, while burden would weigh heavily against transfer, lack of it does 

not weigh equally as heavily for transfer. See Woods, 303 F.R.D. at 407-08 (“[L]ocal 

nonparties should be burdened as little as practicable by litigation in which they are not 

involved, and local resolution of the motion will typically impose a lighter burden.”). 

In light of the consideration of the various factors above, the Court DENIES

Plaintiff’s request to transfer this motion to the District of New Jersey. 

 

5 On January 22, 2018, Judge Mannion held a telephonic conference on various discovery issues in the 

New Jersey case and ordered the Defendants in the underlying case to “provide affidavits or declarations 

in support of their assertion of the common interest privilege.” DNJ ECF No. 182. On February 1, 

2018, the Defendants filed their declarations. DNJ ECF Nos. 186-188. 

Case 3:17-cv-02442-WQH-NLS Document 9 Filed 02/08/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 13
7

3:17-cv-2442-WQH-NLS

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

III. MOTION TO COMPEL6

Plaintiff moves the Court to compel Sorrento to produce documents responsive to 

its Second Subpoena for documents and to compel Sorrento to produce a witness or 

witnesses for a 30(b)(6) deposition. ECF No. 1-2 at 13-14. Plaintiff also requests that 

the Court compel Dr. Ma to produce documents responsive to his subpoena and testify at 

deposition. Id. at 14. 

A. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 governs discovery of third-parties by subpoena. 

Under this Rule, a third-party is subject to the same scope of discovery as a party, as 

defined under Rule 26(b). A party may seek discovery on:

“any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense 

and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the 

issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative 

access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the 

discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the 

proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.”

 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Courts may limit the scope of subpoena if it imposes undue 

burden on the person or entity subject to the subpoena. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1). “Courts 

have broad discretion to determine whether a subpoena is unduly burdensome.” Brown v. 

Deputy No. 1, No. 12-CV-1938-GPC BGS, 2014 WL 842946, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 

2014). 

B. Discussion

i. Sorrento’s Second Document Subpoena 

Plaintiff’s second document subpoena to Sorrento at issue in this motion consists 

of four requests. 

///

 

6 The Court finds that Defendants’ argument that the Plaintiff was required to re-file its motion to 

compel in order to comply with the Chambers Rules after the case was assigned lacks merit. However, 

to the extent any future disputes are filed in this matter, they will be subject to the Chambers Rules. 

Case 3:17-cv-02442-WQH-NLS Document 9 Filed 02/08/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 13
8

3:17-cv-2442-WQH-NLS

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

Requests Nos. 2-4 are similar, with Request No. 2 stating:

2. Documents and communications related to pecuniary and non-pecuniary 

benefits provided by Sorrento to RWMC. 

ECF No. 1-11 at 8. Request Nos. 3 and 4 ask for the same information as to benefits to 

Dr. Junghans and Dr. Katz. Id. Sorrento objects to these requests as overboard in its use 

of the term “related to” pecuniary and non-pecuniary benefits, but submits that it would 

be willing to produce documents that evidence the benefits received by these parties or 

documents sufficient to show the benefits. ECF No. 4 at 11. The Court agrees that this is 

an appropriate narrowing of these requests. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART

the motion to compel as to these requests and Sorrento is ordered to produce documents 

and communications that either evidence or are sufficient to show the pecuniary and nonpecuniary benefits provided by Sorrento to each of RWMC, Dr. Junghans, and Dr. Katz 

in response to Requests Nos. 2-4. 

Request No. 1 asks for: 

1. Documents and communications related to the valuation of $6,000,000 as 

the “Base Price” consideration in the Stock Purchase Agreement and in the 

Membership Interest Purchase Agreement, including, but not limited to:

a. Internal Sorrento communications;

b. Communications between and among Sorrento on the one hand, 

and non-parties to the Stock Purchase Agreement and Membership 

Interest Purchase Agreement on the other hand.

ECF No. 1-11 at 8. Sorrento objects that this request includes attorney-client privileged 

materials and states that it will only agree to produce non-privileged documents 

discussing the $6 million base price. ECF No. 4 at 11. Sorrento additionally argues that 

it should only be ordered to submit a categorical log of privileged documents involving 

its alleged common interest privilege with BDL and CARGenix. Id. 

As for this request, the Court finds that it is appropriate to GRANT IN PART

Plaintiff’s motion to compel, and limit production at this time to non-privileged 

Case 3:17-cv-02442-WQH-NLS Document 9 Filed 02/08/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 13
9

3:17-cv-2442-WQH-NLS

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

documents discussing the $6 million dollar valuation, as long as any privileged 

documents are appropriately logged. As to the issue of the categorical privilege log in 

lieu of a document by document log, Sorrento has provided no reason as to why it is 

required here. See Narayan v. EGL, Inc., No. C05-04181 RMW HRL, 2006 WL 

3050851, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2006) (“Although categorical descriptions of 

privileged documents may be appropriate in situations where the volume of privileged 

documents is demonstrably large, here [the party] has made no effort to describe the 

volume of documents . . . nor has it given the court a picture of the categorical scheme 

that might be employed.”). Thus, request for a categorical log is DENIED. Documents 

withheld on the ground of privilege must, individually, “describe the nature of the 

documents ... and do so in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged 

or protected, will enable other parties to assess the claim.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5). 

As to documents that are otherwise responsive that Sorrento withholds on the 

claim of common interest privilege, this Court ORDERS the parties to apply Judge 

Mannion’s decision, when it issues, to evaluate whether the claim of common interest 

privilege is appropriate for these documents. If the parties are unable to reach agreement

regarding the application of Judge Mannion’s order to the remaining documents, the 

parties are then ordered to comply with this Court’s Chambers Rules for a discovery 

dispute, including a meaningful meet and confer and, if unable to resolve the dispute, 

submission of a Joint Motion regarding the remaining disputed documents and/or 

requests. 

ii. Sorrento’s 30(b)(6) Deposition Subpoena 

Plaintiff also issued a deposition subpoena pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) identifying 

19 topics for questioning. Sorrento submits that it “has never taken the position that it 

would not provide a witness or witnesses for testimony.” ECF No. 4 at 12. Indeed, 

Sorrento’s written responses and objections include a statement of willingness to meet 

and confer. See ECF No. 5-1, Ex. 2. However, Sorrento objects to the topics as 

overbroad, irrelevant, and disproportionate to the needs of the case. Id. Plaintiff moves 

Case 3:17-cv-02442-WQH-NLS Document 9 Filed 02/08/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 13
10

3:17-cv-2442-WQH-NLS

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

to compel designation and deposition on the topics and argues that Sorrento’s objections 

are improper, but does not meaningfully address the 30(b)(6) topics or objections in its 

moving papers, or respond to Sorrento’s arguments in its reply brief. See ECF No. 8. 

Plaintiff also states it is “willing to discuss further the scope of the Deposition Subpoena 

topics....” Id. at 10. 

The Court agrees with both parties: Some of the topics are overbroad, and the 

objections are equally problematic.7 Though phrased broadly, the topics appear to seek 

information relevant to the underlying case regarding the formation, valuation, and sale 

of Research Products and corporations/shells at the heart of the underlying litigation. 

What is clear to the Court is that both parties agreed to further meet and confer. 

Under the circumstances, the Plaintiff’s motion to compel designation and 

deposition is GRANTED IN PART. The Court hereby ORDERS the parties to 

meaningfully meet and confer to narrow and tailor the topics to target information 

reasonably necessary to address specific issues in the underlying case. See Rankine v. 

Roller Bearing Co. of Am., Inc., 12CV2065-IEG BLM, 2013 WL 3992963, at *3 (S.D. 

Cal. Aug. 5, 2013) (holding non-party discovery “should be tailored to request only 

information reasonably necessary to address specific issues in the case”). Following the 

meet and confer session, Sorrento must designate deponents on the narrowed and tailored 

topics. The parties must then meet and confer to find a mutually convenient date for the 

deposition(s) of the designated individual(s) to proceed and be complete prior to the third 

party discovery cut-off date set by Judge Mannion. To the extent Sorrento asserts any 

topics are governed or implicated by the common interest privilege, the parties must 

apply Judge Mannion’s ruling.

///

 

7 For instance, Sorrento argues that topic 1, “the formation of TNK” is overbroad and should instead be 

limited to “when, how, and why [Sorrento] formed TNK.” ECF No. 4 at 12. These proposed “limits” 

present a distinction without a difference.

Case 3:17-cv-02442-WQH-NLS Document 9 Filed 02/08/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of 13
11

3:17-cv-2442-WQH-NLS

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

iii. Dr. Ma’s Subpoenas

Plaintiff also issued both a document subpoena and a deposition subpoena to Dr. 

Ma. ECF Nos. 1-17, 1-18. The document subpoena includes 10 broad document 

requests, to which Dr. Ma objected. ECF No. 1-19. In his opposition, Dr. Ma “realizes 

he is a potential fact witness and is willing to produce documents in response to 

reasonable requests and to sit for deposition afterward.” ECF No. 5 at 1:4-6 (emphasis 

in original). 

In light of Dr. Ma correctly acknowledging that he will have to sit for deposition, 

there is no dispute before the Court that Dr. Ma’s deposition will proceed. Thus, the 

Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s motion to compel Dr. Ma’s deposition, but 

ORDERS the parties to meet and confer to find a mutually convenient date for the 

deposition to proceed such that it can be completed prior to the third party discovery cutoff date set by Judge Mannion. 

The dispute remaining before this Court is limited to the reasonableness and scope 

of the document requests. Dr. Ma argues that the requests are “wildly overbroad,” 

because as an “employee of Sorrento/TNK” whose work is to develop “CAR 

biotechnology” the scope of the document requests as drafted include every work email 

of Dr. Ma’s for the last three years. ECF No. 5 at 1-2. Dr. Ma argues these requests are 

overbroad, disproportionate, and will include voluminous irrelevant material. Id. at 5. 

Plaintiff argues that it requested Dr. Ma “substantiate the purported burden” in producing 

documents by providing a document hit report or to propose search terms, but that Dr. 

Ma has refused. ECF No 1-2 at 9. 

The Court agrees with Dr. Ma that this case is in the late stages of discovery and 

that the document requests are overbroad and likely to capture matter (such as scientific 

research) wholly irrelevant to the contract and misappropriation issues at the heart of the 

underlying case. The requests, as currently phrased to include “all documents and 

communications” related to broad categories such as “TNK,” Dr. Ma’s employer, or 

“CAR-T constructs,” the subject of Dr. Ma’s research, are likely to produce a 

Case 3:17-cv-02442-WQH-NLS Document 9 Filed 02/08/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of 13
12

3:17-cv-2442-WQH-NLS

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

burdensome and disproportionate volume of documents. The Court finds that documents 

in Dr. Ma’s possession and within the scope of the document requests are relevant to the 

underlying litigation, but the requests are overbroad and disproportionate to the needs of 

the case as phrased. However, the Court also finds that the parties are in the best position 

to narrow and tailor search terms and appropriate connectors to gather targeted 

documents relevant to the underlying case. 

The Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART. The parties are 

ORDERED to meet and confer to develop a total of 20 search terms with appropriate 

connectors, consistent with the document request subjects, to yield limited, relevant 

documents for production in response to the document subpoena. The Court finds the 

time period of January 1, 2014 to the present reasonable and imposes that time limitation 

on all requests. The parties are also ORDERED to agree on a timeline for production 

that complies with the timeline for remaining third-party discovery as set by Judge 

Mannion. To the extent Dr. Ma intends to assert privilege over any documents, they must 

be individually identified in a privilege log consistent with the requirements of Rule 

26(b)(5) and will be subject to any ruling on common interest privilege issued by Judge 

Mannion. 

C. Request for Attorneys’ Fees 

Plaintiff briefly requests “reasonable costs, including attorneys’ fees,” at the close 

of its motion. ECF No. 1-2 at 15. This Court does not find the imposition of fees of 

sanctions appropriate in the instant matter. Each parties’ position was substantially 

justified. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (a)(5). 

IV. CONCLUSION

Consistent with the terms and direction as set forth above, 

(1)The Plaintiff’s motion to transfer the motion to the District of New Jersey is 

DENIED; 

(2)The Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents from Sorrento is 

GRANTED IN PART; 

Case 3:17-cv-02442-WQH-NLS Document 9 Filed 02/08/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 12 of 13
13

3:17-cv-2442-WQH-NLS

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

(3)The Plaintiff’s motion to compel designation and deposition of the 30(b)(6) 

witness is GRANTED IN PART; 

(4)The Plaintiff’s motion to compel the deposition of Dr. Ma is DENIED AS 

MOOT; and 

(5)The Plaintiff’s motion to compel the production of documents from Dr. Ma is 

GRANTED IN PART. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 8, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-02442-WQH-NLS Document 9 Filed 02/08/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 13 of 13