Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-01511/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-01511-19/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)

SIXTH DISCOVERY ORDER

Having reviewed plaintiffs’ August 24, 2007 letter

requesting an additional two hours to depose William G.

Dempsey, defendant’s August 28, 2007 opposing the request, and

the entire transcript of the deposition of Mr. Dempsey, I see

no need for further briefing or argument. Treating

plaintiffs’ letter as a motion to compel discovery, the motion

is DENIED. 

Mr. Dempsey’s deposition was ordered principally to allow

plaintiff to question him about his approval of the price hike

at issue. During the deposition, plaintiff spent little time

on this topic. To the extent Mr. Dempsey was questioned on

other topics, his answers demonstrate little specific

Case 4:04-cv-01511-CW Document 372 Filed 09/04/07 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

knowledge or recollection of the events at issue. I find that

plaintiffs did not make good use of the time they had and that

permitting plaintiffs to continue to question Mr. Dempsey

would not be sufficiently productive to warrant the burden on

defendant. See Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii). Therefore, plaintiffs’

motion compel Mr. Dempsey to appear for deposition for an

additional two hours is DENIED. 

Dated: September 4, 2007

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\DOE V.ABBOTT LABS\DISCOVERY ORDER.6.wpd

Case 4:04-cv-01511-CW Document 372 Filed 09/04/07 Page 2 of 2