ILNews

Federal Bar Update: Permissible fishing in discovery process

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Most discovery orders are uninteresting and have little or no significance beyond the dispute between the parties. The Southern District of Indiana’s order in Eli Lilly and Co. v. Wockhardt Limited, et al., No. 1:08-cv-01547 (S.D. Ind. May 27, 2010) (Baker, M.J.), however, is both interesting and has potential broader significance. The court’s unpublished order is available on the court’s website in the Recent Opinions section.

The case was brought by Lilly alleging patent infringement, and the patent discovery issues would be best understood by and most relevant to patent litigators. For the rest of us with average IQs, there are some broader points of relevance.

First, the order teaches that discovery is broad and in some respects a permissible fishing expedition. In granting in part Lilly’s motion to compel, the court wrote: “What’s a high-stakes patent case without a fierce discovery dispute and cries of an unfair ‘fishing expedition’? This case does not disappoint. Defendants … claim that Plaintiff Eli Lilly and Company caught its fair share of discovery documents and needs to return to shore. Lilly wants to fish a little deeper.”

After analyzing various specific issues, the court ultimately concluded, “This case brings to mind Eli Lilly and Company v. InvaGen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 1:09-cv-87-WTL-TAB (S.D. Ind. Sept. 17, 2009), in which cries of a ‘fishing expedition’ also were made. In addressing this concern, the Court observed that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow courts to ‘determine the pond, the type of lure, and how long the parties can leave their lines in the water.’”

Second, the order indicates that sometimes throwing more resources at discovery is necessary. The court observed, “Lilly stresses that Wockhardt has produced only 17,000 pages of documents to Lilly’s 3.5 million, and that Wockhardt’s production is lacking in emails and PowerPoints and devoid of research reports and laboratory notebooks – documents that Lilly claims are relevant to the issues of infringement, induced infringement, and nonobviousness.”

In addressing and rejecting defendants’ “undue burden” arguments, the court then explained, “The foregoing rulings are made with due regard to Wockhardt’s concern that additional production would be unduly burdensome. Discovery in a high-stakes patent infringement case is not without its burdens. Lilly indicated at the … pretrial conference that it allocated significant resources – nearly 60 attorneys and millions of dollars – to responding to Wockhardt’s discovery requests. Wockhardt, on the other hand, has produced only thirty emails and few of the PowerPoints and other documents that are ubiquitous in this type of case. Of course, discovery – unlike some fishing – is not a contest, and Wockhardt need not engage 60 attorneys in a multimillion dollar document production. But Wockhardt will need to allocate more resources toward responding to Lilly’s discovery requests. In this case, that is not an unreasonable burden.”

Finally, regarding Lilly’s contention interrogatories seeking defendant’s basis for its defense that each claim of its patent is invalid, the court rejected defendant’s argument that it should be allowed to await the close of discovery to answer the interrogatories. The court explained, “Wockhardt must answer Lilly’s interrogatory nos. 7 and 10 in good faith and may supplement its responses as it is able to digest Lilly’s large production. Within 28 days of this order, Wockhardt must provide Lilly with at least its basis for raising the defense identified in interrogatory no. 7 and the counterclaim identified in interrogatory no. 10, and Wockhardt must supplement its responses in good faith as discovery progresses.”•

__________

John Maley – jmaley@btlaw.com – is a partner with Barnes & Thornburg litigating federal and state matters nationally. The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.

ADVERTISEMENT