Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-05590/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-05590-33/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MEDIMMUNE, LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PDL BIOPHARMA, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C08-05590 JF (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING DR. WILSON’S

AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

PROTECTIVE ORDER

[Re: Docket No. 511]

Plaintiff MedImmune, LLC (“MedImmune”) seeks a declaration of contractual rights re

a 1997 agreement (“License Agreement”) with defendant PDL Biopharma, Inc. (“PDL”), as

well as a declaration of noninfringement and invalidity as to claim 28 of PDL’s U.S. Patent No.

6,180,370 (the “‘370 patent”). PDL asserts counterclaims for breach of contract and willful

infringement.

In the course of discovery, MedImmune learned that the U.S. Patent & Trademark

Office declared two patent interference proceedings as between certain of PDL’s Queen patents

and a patent application assigned to UCB Pharma, S.A. (“UCB”). Reportedly, at least one of

those interference proceedings involves claim 28 of PDL’s ‘370 patent. Dr. Ian Wilson is an

expert witness retained by PDL in the interference proceedings. He submitted declarations in

those proceedings in which he opines about, among other things, claim 28 of the ‘370 patent

and certain prior art references that are at issue in the instant litigation.

*E-FILED 07-15-2010*

Case 5:08-cv-05590-JF Document 650 Filed 07/15/10 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1 The subpoena in question was issued by the District Court for the Central

District of California. Nevertheless, rather than bring a motion to quash there, Dr. Wilson,

PDL and MedImmune agreed to have this court resolve the matter via a motion for protective

order.

2 PDL suggests, in passing, that MedImmune’s subpoena was untimely. 

MedImmune heartily disagrees. Because the timeliness (or not) of the subpoena in question

is not the focus of the instant motion, this court does not address that issue here.

2

In response to MedImmune’s requests for production, PDL produced a number of filings

and testimony from the PDL-UCB interference proceedings, including two of Dr. Wilson’s

declarations. According to plaintiff, Dr. Wilson’s declarations contain opinions that are

virtually identical to those expressed by MedImmune’s experts and which contradict certain

opinions expressed by PDL’s litigation expert, Dr. Bluestone.

Dr. Wilson has not been retained by any party as an expert in the instant lawsuit. 

Additionally, PDL says that it has no intention of offering any testimony from Dr. Wilson here.

MedImmune served a Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 subpoena for Dr. Wilson’s deposition. In

essence, MedImmune seeks his testimony because MedImmune wants to ask the jury to believe

Dr. Wilson (and MedImmune’s own experts), and not Dr. Bluestone, as to certain matters in

dispute. Dr. Wilson and PDL move for a protective order1

 precluding MedImmune from

deposing Dr. Wilson on the ground that Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(B)(ii) limits MedImmune’s

ability to obtain his testimony.2

 MedImmune opposes the motion. Upon consideration of the

moving and responding papers, as well as the arguments of counsel, this court grants the

motion.

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, a court may, but is not required, to quash or modify a

subpoena if the subpoena requires the disclosure of “an unretained expert’s opinion or

information that does not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from the expert’s

study that was not requested by a party.” FED. R. CIV. P. 45(c)(3)(B)(ii). The rule was

promulgated to curb the “growing problem” of “the use of subpoenas to compel the giving of

evidence and information by unretained experts.” FED. R. CIV. P. 45 advisory committee’s note. 

“As the Advisory Committee notes on the 1991 amendment to Rule 45 illuminate, Rule

45(c)(3)(B)(ii) was designed to ‘provide[] appropriate protection for the intellectual property of

Case 5:08-cv-05590-JF Document 650 Filed 07/15/10 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 non-party witness . . ..’” In re Public Offering PLE Antitrust Litig., 233 F.R.D. 70, 76 (D.

Mass. 2006) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(B)(ii) advisory committee’s note)). Thus, the

rule “was designed to protect experts from being required to provide expert advice or assistance

without proper compensation.” Chavez v. Bd. of Educ. of Tularosa Municipal School, No. CIV

05-380, 2007 WL 1306734 *4 (D. N.M., Feb. 16, 2007).

Preliminarily, MedImmune argues that Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(B)(ii) does not apply

because Dr. Wilson’s declarations discuss matters at issue in this litigation and the work

resulting in those declarations was requested by PDL. But the fact remains that Dr. Wilson has

not been retained as an expert by any party in this lawsuit. See, e.g., Intervet, Inc. v. Merial

Limited, No. 8:07CV194, 2007 WL 1797643 (D. Neb., June 20, 2007) (applying Fed. R. Civ. P.

45(c)(3)(B)(ii) to an unretained expert who had been retained by the plaintiff in a prior lawsuit

between the same parties and concerning the same patent).

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(B)(ii), the court may quash a subpoena seeking

testimony from an unretained expert, unless the party seeking the testimony makes a showing

that satisfies the criteria set out in Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(3)(C). That is, the subpoenaing party must

(a) show a substantial need for the testimony that cannot be otherwise met without undue

hardship; and (b) ensure that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated. Schering

Corp. v. Amgen, Inc., No. Civ. A 98-97, Civ A. 98-98, 1998 WL 552944 *2 (D. Del., Aug. 4,

1998). The court’s discretion in determining whether to allow such discovery should be

informed by: (1) the degree to which the expert is being called because of his knowledge of

facts relevant to the case rather than in order to give opinion testimony; (2) the difference

between testifying to a previously formed or expressed opinion and forming a new one; (3) the

possibility that, for other reasons, the witness is a unique expert, (4) the extent to which the

calling party is able to show the unlikelihood that any comparable witness will willingly testify;

and (5) the degree to which the witness is able to show that he has been oppressed by having to

continually to testify. FED. R. CIV. P. 45 advisory committee’s note (citing Kaufman v.

Edelstein, 539 F.2d 811, 822 (2d Cir. 1976)).

Case 5:08-cv-05590-JF Document 650 Filed 07/15/10 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

In the instant case, the crux of the parties’ dispute is whether MedImmune seeks

testimony from Dr. Wilson in his capacity as an expert (PDL’s view) or as a percipient witness

(MedImmune’s position). While acknowledging that the line between Dr. Wilson’s expertise

and his so-called “factual” testimony is very fine indeed, MedImmune says that it wants to

depose him, not about his expert opinion, but about the circumstances surrounding the

preparation of the declarations he submitted in the PDL-UCB interference proceedings. 

MedImmune further points out that the requested testimony concerns work that Dr. Wilson has

already performed and for which he has already been compensated by PDL. Plaintiff

nonetheless says that to the extent payment is an issue, arrangements could be made to

compensate Dr. Wilson here.

This court is unpersuaded that MedImmune seeks Dr. Wilson’s testimony as a

“percipient” witness. Rather, it seems that Dr. Wilson’s real value to MedImmune is his expert

opinion. Although MedImmune argues that it is a “fact” that Dr. Wilson’s opinion agrees with

those of MedImmune’s experts, it is Dr. Wilson’s opinion that MedImmune really wants to put

before the jury. Cases cited by MedImmune, in which the subpoena targets had knowledge as

percipient witnesses, do not compel a contrary conclusion here. See, e.g., In re Public Offering

PLE Antitrust Litigation, 233 F.R.D. 70 (D. Mass. 2006) (corporate securities attorney

subpoenaed re an article he wrote about certain financial transactions in which he apparently

was involved); Brogren v. Pohlad, No. 94C6301, 1994 WL 654917 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 14, 1994)

(corporate executive subpoenaed to testify about what investment advice his company provided

to another corporation); Arkwright Mutual Ins. Co. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of

Pennsylvania, 148 F.R.D. 552 (S.D. W. Va. 1993) (fire investigator subpoenaed to testify about

what he saw, smelled, and observed during his investigation).

MedImmune contends that Dr. Wilson’s testimony is “unique” because he not only has

opinions that mesh with MedImmune’s experts, he also happens to be retained by PDL in a

separate proceeding. But it appears that plaintiff simply wants to inject Dr. Wilson’s expert

opinion in this litigation as a “me too” to those expressed by MedImmune’s own experts. That

Case 5:08-cv-05590-JF Document 650 Filed 07/15/10 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

does not strike this court as a substantial need that justifies putting Dr. Wilson to the burden of

complying with the subpoena.

MedImmune argues that it is nonetheless entitled to depose Dr. Wilson because his

declarations from the interference proceedings are admissions by PDL in this litigation. Here

too, however, MedImmune’s cited authorities do not support that conclusion. See Glendale

Fed. Bank, FSB v. United States, 39 Fed. Cl. 422, 425 (1997) (holding that “[w]hen an expert

witness is put forward as a testifying expert at the beginning of trial, the prior deposition

testimony of that expert in the same case is an admission against the party that retained him.”)

(emphasis added); In re Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litig., 534 F.3d 986, 1016 (9th Cir. 2008)

(stating that expert testimony offered by plaintiff during her first trial (a mistrial) was a party

admission during her re-trial).

Based on the foregoing, Dr. Wilson’s and PDL’s motion for protective order is granted.

SO ORDERED.

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

July 15, 2010

Case 5:08-cv-05590-JF Document 650 Filed 07/15/10 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

6

5:08-cv-05590-JF Notice electronically mailed to: 

Aaron P. Maurer amaurer@wc.com

Aaron Y Huang aaron.huang@weil.com

Dana Johannes Finberg DANA.FINBERG@LECLAIRRYAN.COM

David Isaac Berl dberl@wc.com

David Isaac Gindler DGindler@Irell.com, dlieberman@irell.com

Gerson Avery Zweifach gzweifach@wc.com

Gregory Hull greg.hull@weil.com, rebecca.kraus@weil.com

Jason George Sheasby , ESQ JSheasby@Irell.com, ewong@irell.com, mdonovan@irell.com

Jeffrey E. Faucette jfaucette@tcolaw.com, cdunbar@tcolaw.com, cwoodrich@tcolaw.com,

mcianfrani@tcolaw.com

Jessamyn Sheli Berniker jberniker@wc.com

Joshua H. Lerner jlerner@durietangri.com, jcotton@durietangri.com,

records@durietangri.com

Matthew Kevin Wisinski matthew.wisinski@leclairryan.com, karen.greer@leclairryan.com

Paul B. Gaffney pgaffney@wc.com

Raymond Angelo LaMagna rlamagna@irell.com, slee@irell.com

T. Ray Guy ray.guy@weil.com

Thomas S Fletcher TFletcher@wc.com, jmcnichols@wc.com, jrydstrom@wc.com

Vernon Michael Winters vern.winters@weil.com, nettie.asiasi@weil.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

Case 5:08-cv-05590-JF Document 650 Filed 07/15/10 Page 6 of 6