Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-05702/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-05702-87/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION, 

d/b/a GLAXOSMITHKLINE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ABBOTT LABORATORIES,

Defendant.

________________________________/

No. C 07-5702 CW

ORDER ON TIMING AND 

LIMITATIONS ON 

SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT 

DISCOVERY

(Docket No. 617)

The above-captioned matter comes before the Court on the 

parties' joint administrative motion to resolve their dispute 

regarding timing and limitations on supplemental expert discovery. 

The parties have three main areas of disagreement: (1) whether 

supplemental reports should be mandatory for all expert witnesses; 

(2) the scope of those reports and expert witness testimony at trial; 

and (3) the schedule for expert discovery.

First, the parties dispute whether non-damages experts should be 

required to submit supplemental reports. GSK argues that for some 

experts, the developments since the last trial had only limited 

impact on their opinions, and that those experts should be able to 

elaborate on their opinions in light of new data and events without 

filing a supplemental report. Abbott argues that Rule 26 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires the experts to set forth "a 

complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the 

basis and reasons for them," including "the facts or data considered 

by the witness in forming them." Thus, Abbott contends, supplemental 

reports are necessary for all experts, even for witnesses whose 

Case 4:07-cv-05702-CW Document 619 Filed 02/17/15 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

testimony is not greatly impacted by developments since the last 

trial. The Court agrees with Abbott, finding no basis to depart from 

the Federal Rules in this instance. Each party is entitled to a 

complete report of the opposing party's expert witnesses. If the 

intervening years' data has only "limited impact" on an expert's 

opinion, the opposing party is entitled to be informed of that 

information. Furthermore, pretrial disclosures will assist in 

avoiding preventable surprises and delays during trial.

Second, the parties disagree on the scope of supplemental expert 

reports and the scope of expert witness testimony at trial. Both 

parties agree to permit experts to utilize updated market data and 

the Court agrees that this is appropriate. The parties disagree on 

what theories an expert will be able to offer. In the discussion of 

this question during the January 7 Pretrial Conference, the Court 

explained its view that the experts' testimony need not be frozen in 

time and that the experts may update their reports and testimony to 

account for updated market data. However, exercising its discretion, 

the Court also held that experts would be confined to testifying to 

previously-disclosed theories. In its motion, GSK interprets the 

Court's statement as holding that the parties are precluded from 

presenting entirely new theories that are inconsistent with the 

theories already offered, or, in other words, the parties may present 

new theories, as long as they are consistent with previouslydisclosed theories. This broadens the Court's ruling. Expert 

witnesses will not be permitted to testify to entirely new theories, 

even those that are consistent with previously-offered testimony. 

Supplemental reports are limited to updating prior disclosed opinions 

based only on relevant market events that occurred since the 2011 

Case 4:07-cv-05702-CW Document 619 Filed 02/17/15 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

3

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

trial. Such a limitation is reasonable and furthers the expeditious 

and fair resolution of this dispute. Furthermore, GSK has not shown 

that such a limitation on expert testimony will result in manifest 

injustice or prejudice. See Cleveland v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 985 

F.2d 1438, 1450 (10th Cir. 1993).

Finally, the parties were unable to agree to a schedule on 

expert discovery. The parties have not established any reason to 

deviate from the dates already set by the Court and, accordingly, the 

Final Pretrial Conference (FPC) remains set for April 8, 2015.

Pursuant to the Court's standing order, the parties must exchange 

(but not file) Daubert motions and Motions in Limine 28 days prior to 

the FPC, or March 11, 2015. The filing deadline for the motions is 

two weeks prior to the FPC, or March 25, 2015, with opposition 

briefing due 7 days after filing, that is, April 1, 2015. The Court 

sets the following additional dates, in order to permit the parties 

to complete the necessary discovery in advance of the alreadyestablished dates: Supplemental Expert Reports shall be due on 

February 27, 2015. Rebuttal Reports, if any, shall be due on March 

11, 2015. The parties may conduct depositions of any experts 

providing supplemental or rebuttal reports from March 11-20, 2015. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 17, 2015

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-05702-CW Document 619 Filed 02/17/15 Page 3 of 3