Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA SHIRE LLC, et al, Plaintiffs, v. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC. et al, Defendants. Civil Action No 1:11cv55 and 201

ORDER/OPINION On November 27, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Protective Order and/or to Quash Subpoena for the Production of Documents [ DE 158] as well as Objections to Defendant Mylan's Subpoena to Produce Documents [DE 159]. On December 11, 2012, Defendants filed their Opposition to the Motion [DE 166]. On December 18, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a Reply [DE 167]. On December 21, 2012, Defendants filed a Motion for Leave to File a Surreply Brief [DE 168]. On December 27, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to Mylan's Motion for Leave to File a SurrReply [DE 170]. On January 3, 2013, Defendants filed a "Reply in Support of its Motion for Leave to File a Surreply" [DE 171]. As a threshold matter, the Court DENIES Defendants' Motion for Leave to File a Surreply Brief [DE 168]. Defendants served a subpoena for the production of documents on Plaintiff Shire on November 13, 2012. The subpoena requested "all written reports, disclosures, opinions,

declarations and/or validity of the Patents-in-Suit in connection with Shire LLC et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA . . ., including all expert witness reports submitted pursuant to Rule 26 . . . .;" "all documents, communications and things relating to any written reports, disclosures, opinions, declarations or affidavits submitted by any expert or consultant retained by Shire regarding the

infringement and/or validity of the Patents-in-Suit in connection with Shire LLC et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA . . . .;" and "all documents, communications and things relating to any deposition testimony given by any expert or consultant retained by Shire regarding the infringement and/or validity of the Patents-in-Suit in connection with Shire LLC et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA . . . Including deposition transcripts and accompanying exhibits." from the Eastern District of Kentucky. Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(c)(3) provides only for the issuing court (in this case the Eastern District of Kentucky) to quash or modify a subpoena. See, e.g., In re C.R. Bard, Inc. Pelvic Repair Systems Products Liability, - - - F.R.D. - - -, 2012 WL 6624770 (S.D.W.Va. 2012); Buyer's Direct Inc. v. Belk, Inc., 2011 WL 6749828 at fn 2(E.D.N.C. 2011); Hodnett v. Smurfit-Stone Container Enterprises, Inc., 2010 WL 3522497 (W.D. La. 2010)("As this court is not the issuing court, it follows therefore, that it lacks authority to act upon [the motions to quash and for other relief regarding] the subpoenas."); Multiquip, Inc. v. Water Management Systems LLC., 2009 WL 5322946 (D. Idaho 2009)("Therefore, pursuant to FRCP 45, this Court may not quash or modify a subpoena issued by another court. Because the subpoena . . . was issued by the District of Minnesota, Defendant's Motion

Download 44043.pdf

West Virginia Law