Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-md-01761/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-md-01761-4/pdf.json

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

---

1 

[PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 2 Case No: MDL Docket No. 1761 (JSW) 

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

[Counsel listed on signature page] 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

IN RE: DITROPAN XL ANTITRUST 

LITIGATION CASE NO. MDL Docket No. 1761 (JSW) 

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO 

ALL CASES 

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED CASE 

MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 2 

WHEREAS, pursuant to Case Management Order No. 1 and Pretrial Order No. 1 (as amended), 

the parties met and conferred to discuss the prompt and efficient prosecution of this matter and appeared 

before the Court for an initial Case Management Conference on Friday, October 27, 2006; and 

WHEREAS, the parties stipulate to the Schedule set forth below; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. Initial Discovery Production: On or before November 3, 2006, assuming the Court has by 

that time entered a protective order to govern the treatment of the parties’ confidential information, 

Defendants will provide copies to Plaintiffs of all documents produced by Alza Corp. and Johnson & 

Johnson in Alza Corporation v. Mylan Laboratories Inc., Civ. Action No. 1:03-cv-61 (N.D. W. Va.) 

(Keely, CJ) (“the Mylan litigation”) and Alza Corp. v. IMPAX Labs., Inc., Case No. 3:03-cv-04032-VRW 

(Walker, J.) (N.D. Cal.) (“the Impax litigation”). Furthermore, within 30 days of the resolution of all 

third-party confidentiality issues, Defendants will make their best efforts to provide Plaintiffs with copies 

of any remaining non-privileged documents associated with the record of the Mylan and Impax

litigations, including copies of all pleadings, motions and supporting or opposing papers, transcripts of 

hearings and depositions, deposition exhibits, expert reports, trial exhibits, discovery requests and 

responses and all documents produced by any party in that case. Alza will also disclose to Plaintiffs on 

or before November 3, 2006, the identity of any party that produced documents in the underlying patent 

Case M:06-cv-01761-JSW Document 20 Filed 10/31/2006 Page 1 of 8
 Case 3:06-md-01761-JSW Document 22 Filed 11/01/06 Page 1 of 8
2 

[PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 2 Case No: MDL Docket No. 1761 (JSW) 

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

litigations. The productions and disclosures required by this paragraph shall be in lieu of any obligation 

required under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

2. Answers/Motion to Dismiss: Defendants shall Answer or otherwise plead in response to 

Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended Complaints on or before November 3, 2006. In the event Defendants 

file Motions to Dismiss, the briefing schedule shall be as follows: 

Deadline to file Opening Briefs: November 3, 2006 

Deadline to file Oppositions: December 22, 2006 

Deadline to file Replies: January 19, 2007 

Date for Oral Argument (proposed): February 9, 2007 at 9:00 a.m.1

3. Fact Discovery: Fact discovery on both class and merits issues shall proceed 

simultaneously. The parties may initiate discovery related to any issue, including third-party discovery, 

at anytime after November 3, 2006. Discovery shall include, but is not limited, to the following: 

a) Matters relating to Class Certification; 

b) Whether there is evidence that Alza knowingly and intentionally deceived the United 

States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) in connection with the procurement of U.S. 

Patent No. 6,124,355 (“’355 Patent”); 

c) Whether the underlying patent litigation brought by Alza against Mylan Laboratories, Inc. 

(Alza Corp. v. Mylan Labs., Civ. No. 1:03CV61 (N.D. W.V.) and/or Impax Laboratories, 

Inc. (Alza Corp. v. IMPAX Labs., Inc., Case No. 3:03-cv-04032-VRW (N.D. Cal.)) was 

objectively baseless; 

d) Whether the underlying patent litigation brought by Alza against Mylan Laboratories, Inc. 

(Alza Corp. v. Mylan Labs., Civ. No. 1:03CV61 (N.D. W.V.) and/or Impax Laboratories, 

Inc. (Alza Corp. v. IMPAX Labs., Inc., Case No. 3:03-cv-04032-VRW (N.D. Cal.)) was an 

 

1 Defendants intend to move to dismiss, or alternatively to stay, these actions on the ground that the cases are 

not ripe, and hence not properly subject to the Court’s jurisdiction. By agreeing to this Order, and specifically 

by agreeing to proceed with initial discovery pending the resolution of motions to dismiss, Defendants do not 

consent to the Court’s jurisdiction or otherwise waive any argument in support of their motions to dismiss or 

stay. Plaintiffs agree that they will not cite this Order or the commencement of initial discovery as a basis for 

opposing such motions.

Case M:06-cv-01761-JSW Document 20 Filed 10/31/2006 Page 2 of 8
 Case 3:06-md-01761-JSW Document 22 Filed 11/01/06 Page 2 of 8
3 

[PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 2 Case No: MDL Docket No. 1761 (JSW) 

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

attempt to interfere directly with the business relationships of Alza’s competitors through 

the use of governmental process – as opposed to the outcome of that process – as an 

anticompetitive weapon; 

e) Whether Alza’s conduct in the underlying patent litigation caused the Plaintiffs to suffer a 

cognizable economic loss; 

f) Whether the Plaintiffs are able to establish an “antitrust” injury; 

g) Whether the Plaintiffs are able to prove that Defendants acquired or maintained monopoly 

power through actionable exclusionary conduct; and 

h) Any other issue not specifically enumerated herein but related to the allegations included 

within Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended Complaints. 

Discovery related to issue 3(a) shall close on July 13, 2007. Discovery related to issues 3(b) 

through 3(d) shall close on September 28, 2007. Absent leave of the Court, no party shall be permitted to 

depose an individual fact witness more than once. A designated expert witness may be deposed one time 

for each opening report that he or she authors on a given topic. 

4. Class Certification: Direct Purchasers and Indirect Purchasers shall file their motion and 

supporting memoranda for Class Certification no later than April 27, 2007, together with expert reports, 

if any. Defendants shall have until July 27, 2007, to: (i) depose any expert(s) that submitted a report in 

connection with any motion for class certification; and (ii) file any Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for 

Class Certification, together with any accompanying expert report(s). Plaintiffs shall have until August 

24, 2007, to (i) depose any expert(s) that submitted a report relied upon in support of Defendants’ 

opposition to class certification; and (ii) to file any Reply and Rebuttal Report(s). The hearing on 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification shall be scheduled September 14, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. 

5. Summary Judgment Motions: Any party may file a Motion for Summary Judgment or 

Partial Summary Judgment regarding the issues articulated in paragraphs 3(b) through 3(d) on or before 

October 12, 2007, and all other summary judgment issues are reserved until after the Court issues its 

decision(s) on any such motions. If either party intends to rely on expert testimony in support of or in 

opposition to summary judgment on issues 3(b) through 3(d), the party shall serve such expert reports 

together with its relevant motion or opposition, as reflected below. (Nothing in this Order shall preclude 

Case M:06-cv-01761-JSW Document 20 Filed 10/31/2006 Page 3 of 8
 Case 3:06-md-01761-JSW Document 22 Filed 11/01/06 Page 3 of 8
4 

[PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 2 Case No: MDL Docket No. 1761 (JSW) 

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

any party from developing or relying upon expert testimony for purposes of trial.) Each party may take 

the deposition of any expert whose report is relied upon in support or opposition to summary judgment 

and the parties shall work in good faith to schedule expert depositions within a reasonable time after 

receipt of the expert’s report. 

Within a reasonable time prior to the initial deadline for filing of summary judgment motions 

pursuant to this Paragraph, the parties shall meet and confer in good faith to determine which party or 

parties intend to move for summary judgment on issues 3(b) through (d). In the event that more than one 

party intends to move for summary judgment on a given issue, one party shall file an opening motion and 

the other party(ies) shall file a cross motion. In this event, the parties will confer and reach agreement as 

to which party shall file the opening motion, and which party(ies) shall file the cross motion. Any 

motions, cross motions, or oppositions that involve issues that are common to both the Direct and 

Indirect Purchaser Actions will be addressed jointly in a single brief filed on behalf of both the Direct 

and Indirect Purchaser Actions. Assuming there are both motions and cross motions for summary 

judgment, the schedule for briefing and consideration of such motions shall be as follows: 

a) Deadline for filing Opening Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment 

(“Opening Motion”) and supporting expert reports: October 12, 2007; 

b) Deadline for filing Cross Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment 

(“Cross Motion”) and supporting expert reports, and deadline for Opposition to Opening 

Motion and supporting expert reports: November 21, 2007; 

c) Deadline for filing Opposition to Cross Motion and any supporting expert reports and for 

Reply brief in support of Opening Motion and any rebuttal expert reports: December 21, 

2007; 

d) Deadline for filing Reply brief in support of Cross Motion and any rebuttal expert reports: 

January 25, 2008; and 

e) Oral argument on the parties’ Opening Motion and Cross Motion shall be on February 15, 

2008 (however, the parties request that the Court not resolve any Motions for Summary 

Judgment prior to a resolution of class certification issues). 

Case M:06-cv-01761-JSW Document 20 Filed 10/31/2006 Page 4 of 8

on the motion(s) for summary judgment on issues 3(b) through (d) 

Case 3:06-md-01761-JSW Document 22 Filed 11/01/06 Page 4 of 8
5 

[PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 2 Case No: MDL Docket No. 1761 (JSW) 

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

In the event that no party or parties file a Cross Motion, the same schedule outlined above with 

respect to the Opening Motion shall apply. However, if no Cross Motion is filed, oral argument on the 

Opening Motion shall be on January 11, 2008. 

6. Amendments to Case Management Order No. 2. The above schedule in this Case 

Management Order No. 2 is premised on the parties’ cooperation in discovery matters, including 

complete and timely production of documents, scheduling of depositions, and good faith responses 

and/or supplements to written discovery. The parties agree to negotiate in good faith any changes to this 

schedule should changes become necessary. 

7. Remainder of the Schedule: If this case is not entirely resolved either through Motions to 

Dismiss or Motions for Summary Judgment on issues 3(b) through 3(d), the parties will meet and confer 

on a schedule for further pretrial proceedings and a proposed trial date. 

8. Amendments to Amended Pre-Trial Order No. 1: The Court’s Amended Pre-Trial Order 

No. 1 dated September 11, 2006, is hereby amended to reflect that the following lawyers are appointed 

by the Court to serve as Co-Lead Counsel for the Indirect Purchasers: 

Timothy J. Becker 

ZIMMERMAN REED, P.L.L.P. 

651 Nicollet Mall, Suite 501 

Minneapolis, MN 55402 

Telephone: (612) 341-0400 

Facsimile: (612) 341-0844 

Jason J. Thompson 

CHARFOOS & CHRISTENSEN, P.C. 

5510 Woodward Avenue 

Detroit, MI 48202 

Telephone: (313) 875-8080 

Facsimile: (313) 875-8522 

Edward A. Wallace 

WEXLER WALLACE TORISEVA LLP 

One North LaSalle Street, Suite 2000 

Chicago, IL 60602 

Telephone: (312) 346-2222 

Facsimile: (312) 346-0022 

Case M:06-cv-01761-JSW Document 20 Filed 10/31/2006 Page 5 of 8
 Case 3:06-md-01761-JSW Document 22 Filed 11/01/06 Page 5 of 8
6 

[PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 2 Case No: MDL Docket No. 1761 (JSW) 

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

Jeffrey L. Kodroff 

SPECTOR, ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C. 

1818 Market Street, Suite 2500 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

Telephone: (215) 496-0300 

Facsimile: (215) 496-6611 

The designated Indirect Purchaser Co-Lead Counsel shall assume all the responsibility described in the 

Court’s Amended Pre-Trial Order No. 1, including those responsibilities originally reserved for the Chair 

of Discovery. 

STIPULATED AND AGREED TO BY:

DATED: October 31, 2006 

 /s/ 

Timothy J. Becker 

ZIMMERMAN REED, P.L.L.P. 

651 Nicollet Mall, Suite 501 

Minneapolis, MN 55402 

Telephone: (612) 341-0400 

Facsimile: (612) 341-0844 

Jason J. Thompson 

CHARFOOS & CHRISTENSEN, P.C. 

5510 Woodward Avenue 

Detroit, MI 48202 

Telephone: (313) 875-8080 

Facsimile: (313) 875-8522 

Edward A. Wallace 

WEXLER WALLACE TORISEVA LLP 

One North LaSalle Street, Suite 2000 

Chicago, IL 60602 

Telephone: (312) 346-2222 

Facsimile: (312) 346-0022 

Jeffrey L. Kodroff 

SPECTOR, ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C. 

1818 Market Street, Suite 2500 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

Telephone: (215) 496-0300 

Case M:06-cv-01761-JSW Document 20 Filed 10/31/2006 Page 6 of 8
 Case 3:06-md-01761-JSW Document 22 Filed 11/01/06 Page 6 of 8
7 

[PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 2 Case No: MDL Docket No. 1761 (JSW) 

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

Facsimile: (215) 496-6611 

Attorneys for Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs 

Thomas M. Sobol 

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP 

One Main Street, 4th Floor 

Cambridge, MA 02142 

Telephone: (617) 482-3700 

Facsimile: (617) 482-3003 

Dianne M. Nast 

RODANAST, PC 

801 Estelle Drive 

Lancaster, PA 17601 

Telephone: (717) 892-3000 

Facsimile: (717) 892-1200 

Daniel E. Gustafson 

GUSTAFSON & GLUEK, P.L.L.P. 

650 Northstar East 

608 Second Avenue South 

Minneapolis, MN 55402 

Telephone: (612) 333-8844 

Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 

Attorneys for Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs 

DATED: October 31, 2006 

 /s/ 

M. Sean Royall (admitted pro hac vice) 

Monique Michal Drake, SBN 167188 

Michael A. Sitzman, SBN 156667 

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 

One Montgomery Street, Suite 3100 

San Francisco, California 94104 

Telephone: (415) 393-8200 

Facsimile: (415) 986-5309 

Email: sroyall@gibsondunn.com 

Email: mdrake@gibsondunn.com 

Email: msitzman@gibsondunn.com 

Attorneys for Defendants Alza Corporation and 

Johnson & Johnson 

Case M:06-cv-01761-JSW Document 20 Filed 10/31/2006 Page 7 of 8
 Case 3:06-md-01761-JSW Document 22 Filed 11/01/06 Page 7 of 8
8 

[PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 2 Case No: MDL Docket No. 1761 (JSW) 

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

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October ____, 2006 __________________________________________ 

The Honorable Jeffrey S. White 

United States District Judge 

100104520_2.DOC 

Case M:06-cv-01761-JSW Document 20 Filed 10/31/2006 Page 8 of 8

November 1

Case 3:06-md-01761-JSW Document 22 Filed 11/01/06 Page 8 of 8