Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00383/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00383-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 - 11CV383

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re Subpoena Issued to Beatrice A. Golomb CASE NO. 11CV383 JLS (RBB)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

QUASH THIRD PARTY

SUBPOENA

(Doc. No. 1.)

Presently before the Court is Movant Dr. Beatrice A. Golomb’s motion to quash third party

subpoena. (Doc. No. 1 (Mot. to Quash).) For the reasons stated below, the motion to quash third

party subpoena is GRANTED.

The underlying action is a suit by Plaintiff Rose E. Kuchinsky against Pfizer Incorporated,

asserting claims of injury caused by Lipitor, a statin drug produced by Pfizer. Dr. Golomb is a

professor at the University of California at San Diego (UCSD) who researches, among other

things, the risks and benefits of statin drugs and biases in drug trials and studies.

Plaintiff has requested Dr. Golomb to serve as an expert witness on several occasions. Dr.

Golomb has declined every time, citing her wish to keep her research unbiased. Finally on

February 16, 2011, Plaintiff served Dr. Golomb with a Third Party Subpoena to Testify at a

Deposition in a Civil Action (Third Party Subpoena). The subpoena requires Dr. Golomb to

testify at a deposition in San Diego on February 24, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. (Exhibit C.) It also

requires Dr. Golomb to produce a significant volume of documents, including:

Case 3:11-cv-00383-JLS-RBB Document 2 Filed 02/24/11 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 11CV383

1) All publications and articles you have authored with regard to statin drugs, any

statin study, and any reporting and other biases in drug studies and industrysponsored drug trials.

2) Any and all documents relation to any and all communications and meetings that

you have had with Pfizer Inc. with regard to Lipitor or any other statin drug.

3) Any and all documents relation to any and all communications and meetings that

you have had with the FDA with regard to Lipitor or any other statin drug. 

4) To the extent not already requested, any and all documents written by you that

relate to the Plaintiff’s complaint attached to your Federal Subpoena. 

(Exhibit C at 6–7.) 

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(B)(ii), the Court may quash a subpoena seeking

testimony from an unretained expert, unless the subpoenaing party (a) shows a substantial need for

the testimony that cannot be otherwise met without undue hardship; and (b) ensures that the

subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated. Schering Corp. v. Amgen, Inc., 1998 WL

552944, *2 (D. Del. Aug. 4, 1998). The Court’s discretion to allow such discovery is informed by:

(1) the degree to which the expert is being called because of his knowledge of facts relevant to the

case rather than in order to give opinion testimony; (2) the difference between testifying to a

previously formed or expressed opinion and forming a new one; (3) the possibility that, for other

reasons, the witness is a unique expert; (4) the extent to which the calling party is able to show the

unlikelihood that any comparable witness will willingly testify; and (5) the degree to which the

witness is able to show that he has been oppressed by having to continually to testify. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 45 advisory committee’s note (citing Kaufman v. Edelstein, 539 F.2d 811, 822 (2d Cir. 1976)).

The balance of factors weighs in favor of denying discovery and quashing the subpoena. 

Nothing indicates that Dr. Golomb has any knowledge of facts relevant to Plaintiff’s case. The

subpoena requests a broad swath, if not the entire swath, of Dr. Golomb’s research. This implies

to the Court a request for Dr. Golomb’s opinion on the basis of her research and not a request for

Dr. Golomb’s knowledge of facts relevant to the dispute.

Case 3:11-cv-00383-JLS-RBB Document 2 Filed 02/24/11 Page 2 of 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

- 3 - 11CV383

Moreover, Dr. Golomb provides substantial evidence that she would suffer undue burden if

forced to testify and provide documents. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A)(iv) (allowing a court to

quash or modify a subpoena that subjects a person to undue burden). Dr. Golomb has, throughout

her career, avoided testifying as an expert in the hopes of keeping her research unbiased. (Golomb

Decl.) Moreover, her research is publically funded and she could be forced to include her

participation in this case when requesting future grants. This could negatively affect on Dr.

Golomb’s ability to receive public funding in the future. 

And most importantly, Dr. Golomb is not the only independently funded scientist who

studies the adverse effects of statin drugs or biases in drug studies. (Golomb Decl. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff

has the opportunity to obtain the same information from other sources. There is little reason why

Dr. Golomb should be forced into providing her opinion as an expert witness. Plaintiff would not

suffer undue hardship if forced to obtain the requested information from another source. 

The factors weigh in favor of denying Plaintiff’s subpoena seeking testimony from an

unretained expert. Dr. Golomb’s motion to quash third party subpoena is therefore GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 24, 2011

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00383-JLS-RBB Document 2 Filed 02/24/11 Page 3 of 3