Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03709/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03709-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act

---

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

1Pl.’s Br. Re: Laddu, dated April 14, 2005; Defs.’ Opp’n Br., dated April 21, 2005. Pl.’s Br. Re:

Ludmer, dated April 14, 2005; Defs.’ Opp’n Br., dated April 21, 2005. Pl.’s Br. Re: Burditt and Wood,

dated April 21, 2005; Defs.’ Opp’n Br., dated April 28, 2005. 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re CV THERAPEUTICS 

SECURITIES LITIGATION

 /

No. C 03-03709 SI

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY

By letter briefs,1the parties seek resolution of a dispute regarding the disclosure of documents to

plaintiff’s experts under the protocol set out in the February 7, 2005 Protective Order. The Protective Order,

which is identical to the Northern District’s form order, provides for two tiers of protection for confidential

information: (1) confidential and (2) highly confidential “attorneys’ eyes only.” Plaintiff seeks to disclose

documents designated “highly confidential” and “confidential” to expert witnesses Dr. Atul Laddu, Dr. Paul

Ludmer, Mr. George M. Burditt, and Mr. Richard O. Wood. Plaintiff also seeks to modify the procedures

for disclosure of documents to experts and the definition of “expert” in the Protective Order to include former

employees. Defendants argue that plaintiff has not complied with the Protective Order and that modifying the

definition of “expert” would harm their interests in protecting confidential information. 

1. Disclosure of “confidential” documents

Plaintiff asserts that the Protective Order permits him to disclose “confidential” documents to various

experts without a showing ofwhy the disclosure is reasonably necessary. See Pl.’s April 14, 2005 LadduBr.

at 4; Pl.’s April 14, 2005 Ludmer Br. at 4; Pl.’s April 21, 2005 Burditt and Wood Br. at 3. Plaintiff contends

that, unlike the procedure for disclosure of highly confidential documents delineated in ¶7.4 of the Protective

Case 3:03-cv-03709-SI Document 249 Filed 08/10/05 Page 1 of 4
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

2

Order, the provision for disclosing confidential documents in ¶7.2(c) does not require plaintiff to consult with

defendants prior to disclosing confidential documents. Defendants do not dispute this interpretation of the

Protective Order, and thus the parties appear to be in agreement. Accordingly, the Court does not rule on this

issue.

2. Disclosure of “highly confidential” documents

Plaintiff requests an order permitting disclosure of “highly confidential” documents to four expert

consultants. Plaintiff asserts that he has complied with the procedures for approving disclosure of highly

confidentialinformationto experts required by ¶7.4 of the Protective Order. Defendants contend that plaintiff

has not complied with ¶7.4 procedures in two respects. 

First, defendant argues that plaintiff has not provided the details of Dr. Ladmer’s involvement in

litigationrequired by ¶7.4(a)(6). To the extent that plaintiff has still not furnished the number of each case, filing

date, and location of the court for any litigationin whichDr. Ladmer was involved previously, the Court agrees

with defendants and ORDERS that plaintiff comply with this request. 

Second, defendants assert thatplaintiffhas notcomplied with the requirement of ¶7.4(1)that he identify

the “specific HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL information” that plaintiff seeks to disclose to these four experts.

Plaintiff refuses to “pinpoint[] the exact documents” he plans to show his experts. Pl.’s Laddu Brief at 4.

Rather, plaintiff has offered to identify categories of documents he seeks to disclose. Defendants argue that

these broad categories, such as “FDA communications,” could include thousands ofpages of information and

would prevent defendants from responding to plaintiff’s requests in a way that will protect their confidential

information. Defs.’ Ludmer Br. at 3. 

According to plaintiff, identifying specific documents would inappropriately reveal attorney workproduct and litigation strategy. Pl.’s Ludmer Br. at 3. Plaintiff made this same argument in opposing

defendants’ motion for a Protective Order. Pl.’s Oct. 29, 2004 Opp’n at 17. At that time, the Court found

that defendants’ interests in protecting their confidential information outweighed any protections afforded by

the work-product doctrine, and it is still persuaded that this balance is the appropriate one. Moreover, it is not

clear thatwork product protection even applies. “The work product doctrine, codified in Federal Rule of Civil

Case 3:03-cv-03709-SI Document 249 Filed 08/10/05 Page 2 of 4
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

2Defendants also argue that Dr. Laddu is bound by a Nondisclosure Agreement (“NDA”), which he

entered into with defendant CV Therapeutics, Inc. and which prevents him from testifying as an expert in this

case. Defs.’ April 21, 2005 Laddu Brief at 2-3. The NDA has no bearing on the terms of the Protective

Order or their modification. Therefore, the effect of the NDA on Laddu’s expert status is not before the Court.

3

Procedure 26(b)(3), protects ‘from discovery documents and tangible things prepared by a party or his

representative in anticipation of litigation.’” United States v. Torf (In re Grand Jury Subpoena), 350 F.3d

1010, 1015 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Admiral Ins. Co. v. United States District Court, 881 F.2d 1486, 1494

(9thCir. 1989)). Here, plaintiff claims work-product protection forinformationpossibly revealed bydisclosing

which specific documents his experts will view in formulating their opinions. This information is not “documents

or tangible things” sought by defendants through affirmative discovery efforts, and it is difficult to see how the

work product doctrine could govern. In addition, allowing plaintiff to identify only broad categories would

eviscerate the protections in the Protective Order, which contemplate the identification of the specific

documents plaintiff seeks to disclose. 

Therefore, the Court ORDERS that plaintiff comply with the procedures of the Protective Order and

specify the highly confidential documents it wishes to disclose to its to experts. 

3. Modifications to Protective Order

Plaintiffseeks twomodificationsto the February 7, 2005 Protective Order. First, plaintiff requests that

the Court modify the procedures in ¶7.4 for approving disclosure of highly confidential information to experts.

To modify a protective order, a party must show good cause by “demonstrating how the protective order will

prejudice the party’s case.” IntelCorp. v. VIA Techs., Inc., 198 F.R.D. 525, 528 (N.D. Cal. 2000). Plaintiff

has not presented any evidence of circumstances thatwould justify modifying these protections. Therefore, the

Court DENIES plaintiff’s request to modify these procedures of the Protective Order. 

Plaintiff also requests modificationofthe definitionof “expert” in the Protective Order to permit former

employees to act as expert consultants. Plaintiff argues that disclosure of confidential and highly confidential

informationto Dr. Laddu, a former employee ofdefendant CV Therapeutics, Inc., does not pose a risk ofharm

to defendants. Defendants assert that disclosure of confidential information to Dr. Laddu poses significant risks

of harm.2 The Court finds that the exclusion of former employees is not overly restrictive in this case. Plaintiff

Case 3:03-cv-03709-SI Document 249 Filed 08/10/05 Page 3 of 4
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

has not shown that Dr. Laddu is the only expert qualified to review the confidential documents or that the

Protective Order prejudices plaintiff’s case by preventing him fromconsulting experts altogether. Indeed, the

Protective Order excludes former employees to avoid precisely this kind of dispute over whether a former

employee like Dr. Laddu would place defendants’ confidential information at risk. 

Therefore, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s request to modify the Protective Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 9, 2005

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-03709-SI Document 249 Filed 08/10/05 Page 4 of 4