Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-05590/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-05590-31/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

1 The ninth motion, PDL’s cross-motion for protective order, was filed shortly

after MedImmune filed its opposition to the instant motion for shortened time.

2 Although PDL cast its underlying motion as one to change the case

management schedule, the relief it seeks pertains only to the number of depositions which

may be taken. It is this court’s understanding that the question whether discovery or other

case management deadlines should be extended has not been referred to it.

NOT FOR CITATION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 IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR ORDER SHORTENING

TIME

[Re: Docket No. 629]

For months, the parties have vigorously wrangled over myriad discovery disputes, a

number of which have been set on a compressed schedule. In recent weeks, disputes arising in

the course of the so-called “Phase II” discovery period have spawned no less than nine

discovery motions before this court. In this, the eighth1

 in this flurry of time-consuming

discovery disputes, defendant PDL Biopharma, Inc. (PDL) seeks leave to take up to 70 hours of

depositions (excluding certain categories of depositions) and requests that the court resolve the

matter on a dramatically truncated schedule. (In a footnote in its discovery motion, PDL states

that more discovery motions are to come. See Docket 626 at 9 n.11). MedImmune opposes the

motion for shortened time. The matter has been referred to this court for disposition.2

*E-FILED 07-12-2010*

Case 5:08-cv-05590-JF Document 636 Filed 07/12/10 Page 1 of 3
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 Given the recent barrage of discovery motions, and the past failures of the

parties to revolve their disputes informally, the parties may wish to seriously consider

whether it might be appropriate for a Special Master to be appointed to address future

disputes within the timeframe that the parties claim they need.

2

Although PDL suggests that its underlying discovery motion “could be dispatched by

the Court in minutes” (Docket No. 629 at 3), this court simply cannot accommodate PDL’s

discovery motion on the shortened schedule PDL proposes.3

 Indeed, even if this court were to

immediately set a hearing and issue a ruling in PDL’s favor, it is doubtful whether PDL could

accomplish the depositions it seeks before the July 20, 2010 fact discovery cutoff, the stated

reason for emergency. More to the point, the approaching July 20, 2010 cutoff is a deadline

that the presiding judge set months ago at PDL’s request. This court wonders why PDL is

raising this issue only now, with little more than one week left in the fact discovery

period—especially since the record presented indicates that the subject of deposition limits was

discussed between the parties months ago, with MedImmune suggesting a 10-deposition limit

and PDL apparently preferring to defer the matter. (See Berl Decl., Ex. 1 at 8).

Nevertheless, this court will set PDL’s discovery motion for hearing on August 10,

2010, 10:00 a.m. when the parties are scheduled to be before this court on a number of other

discovery disputes. MedImmune’s opposition shall be filed by July 20, 2010. PDL’s reply

shall be filed by July 27, 2010.

SO ORDERED.

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

July 12, 2010

Case 5:08-cv-05590-JF Document 636 Filed 07/12/10 Page 2 of 3
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

5:08-cv-05590-JF Notice has been 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

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

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 636 Filed 07/12/10 Page 3 of 3