In re Dexilant Antitrust Litigation
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:25-cv-02785
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In re Dexilant Antitrust Litigation: Judge Corley denied defendants’ request to pause discovery while their dismissal motion is pending.
The ruling affects the defendants, who must produce specified documents and begin discovery discussions, and the plaintiffs, who may proceed with the limited discovery ordered by the court.
What happened
In re Dexilant (Dexlansoprazole) Antitrust Litigation concerns plaintiffs’ allegations that Takeda paid TWi to delay entry of a generic version of Dexilant. Defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit and asked the court to pause all discovery while that motion is pending.
Plaintiffs requested limited documents, including agreements between Takeda and TWi, regulatory filings, and materials from related patent litigation. They also sought to begin discussions about procedures for collecting and exchanging electronic information and documents.
The court denied defendants’ motion to stay discovery, finding they had not shown good cause. Judge Corley ordered production of the specified documents by November 13, 2025, and ordered the parties to begin discussing discovery procedures.
The detailed version
- In re Dexilant Antitrust Litigation · No. 3:25-cv-02785
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Oct. 16, 2025
Background
Plaintiffs allege that Takeda unlawfully paid TWi to delay market entry of a generic version of Takeda’s drug Dexilant. Defendants moved to dismiss all claims. While that motion was pending, defendants asked the court to stay, or pause, all discovery. Plaintiffs opposed a blanket stay and requested limited discovery, including documents they called “go get” documents.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that filing a motion to dismiss does not automatically pause discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It also noted that, unlike lawsuits covered by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, no statute automatically stays discovery in an antitrust lawsuit.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), a court may issue a protective order for good cause to protect against undue burden or similar harm. The court found that defendants had not shown good cause for stopping all discovery. The requested documents were relevant and central to the case, and producing them would help plaintiffs develop later discovery requests. The court also concluded that a blanket stay would delay resolution of the case.
Order
The court denied defendants’ motion to stay discovery. It ordered defendants, to the extent the materials were in their possession, custody, or control, to produce by November 13, 2025: Takeda’s settlement agreements with TWi relating to Dexilant; TWi’s Paragraph IV certifications relating to Dexilant; TWi’s Abbreviated New Drug Application and supplements relating to Dexilant; and unredacted filings and expert reports from patent litigation Takeda brought against TWi, except to the extent those filings contained confidential information about nonparties.
The court also ordered defendants to meet and confer with plaintiffs about an electronic stored information protocol and document requests. The opinion did not decide the pending motion to dismiss or the underlying antitrust claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.