Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-01511/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-01511-18/pdf.json

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

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE ABBOTT LABS NORVIR

ANTITRUST LITIGATION,

This Document Relates to All

Actions.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C04-1511 CW (BZ)

FIFTH DISCOVERY ORDER

On August 8, 2007, I held a telephonic conference to

discuss the discovery disputes outlined in the parties’ August

1 and August 3 letters. All interested parties participated

through counsel. The parties having agreed that no further

briefing is required, I will treat defendant Abbott

Laboratories’s August 1 letter as constituting a motion to

compel and a motion to alter export report disclosure dates. 

On that basis, and for the reasons discussed during the

conference, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. On the representation by plaintiffs’ counsel that

their June 1, 2007 answers to defendant’s interrogatories

provided all factual information relating to the bases for its

Case 4:04-cv-01511-CW Document 356 Filed 08/08/07 Page 1 of 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

2

patent invalidity arguments known by plaintiffs (excluding

information developed by plaintiffs’ expert) at that time, the

motion is DENIED. I understand that it may assist defendant

to learn of the information plaintiffs’ expert has developed

as early as possible, but its remedy was to advance the expert

disclosure dates, not to subvert the disclosure process with

contention interrogatories. 

2. Defendant’s motion to order the plaintiffs to submit

the initial expert report on the issue of the validity of

defendant’s patents is DENIED. This does not appear to be a

discovery dispute but, rather, a dispute about who has the

burden of establishing the invalidity of the patents at trial. 

While I expressed my views during the conference, I believe

that this ultimately needs to be decided by Judge Wilken. 

Dated: August 8, 2007

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\DOE V.ABBOTT LABS\DISCOVERY ORDER.5.wpd

Case 4:04-cv-01511-CW Document 356 Filed 08/08/07 Page 2 of 2