AbCellera Biologics Inc. v. Bruker Cellular Analysis, Inc.
- Jon Tigar
- 4:20-cv-08624
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In AbCellera Biologics v. Bruker Cellular, Judge DeMarchi ordered a redacted declaration produced to resolve a discovery dispute.
AbCellera Biologics Inc., its co-plaintiff UBC, Bruker Cellular Analysis, Inc., and witness Andrew Booth were affected by the court’s discovery ruling.
What happened
AbCellera Biologics v. Bruker Cellular Analysis concerned a discovery dispute over a declaration by AbCellera witness Andrew Booth. The court reviewed the declaration privately after AbCellera submitted it at the court’s direction.
The court found that the declaration contained factual information relevant to the parties’ damages calculations, which should have been covered during Booth’s deposition. It also found that some material was protected by the joint defense privilege because it concerned communications between co-plaintiffs AbCellera and UBC about a shared legal interest.
Judge DeMarchi adopted AbCellera’s proposal that AbCellera produce a redacted version of Booth’s declaration to Bruker Cellular instead of providing further deposition testimony. The court expected that production to resolve the dispute, but directed the parties to confer and file a joint status report if disagreements remained.
The detailed version
- AbCellera Biologics Inc. v. Bruker Cellular Analysis, Inc. · No. 4:20-cv-08624
- Jon Tigar
- May 23, 2025
Background
The order addressed a further discovery dispute concerning the parties’ April 28, 2025 discovery dispute letter. At the court’s direction, AbCellera submitted the declaration of Andrew Booth for in camera review, meaning the court reviewed it privately.
Court’s Analysis
The court determined that the declaration included factual information about matters previously found relevant to the parties’ respective damages calculations. The court stated that Booth should have been allowed to testify about that information during his deposition.
The declaration also contained material protected by the joint defense privilege. The court described that material as communications between UBC and AbCellera, co-plaintiffs in the action, concerning a matter in which they shared a common legal interest. The court explained that the joint defense privilege extends attorney-client privilege.
Ruling and Next Steps
Because of the status of the proceedings, the court adopted AbCellera’s suggestion that AbCellera produce a redacted version of Booth’s declaration to Bruker Cellular rather than provide further deposition testimony from Booth or another AbCellera witness. The court ordered AbCellera to promptly produce the entirety of Booth’s May 23, 2025 declaration in redacted form.
The court expected production of the declaration to fully resolve the dispute. If Bruker Cellular disagreed that the redacted declaration resolved the matter, the parties were directed to confer further. If they could not agree, they were directed to file a joint status report briefly summarizing their respective proposals for resolving the remaining dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.