Holley v. Gilead Sciences, Inc.
- Jon Tigar
- 4:18-cv-06972
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Holley v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., Judge Tigar ordered summary jury trials and set a September 30, 2020 discovery-production deadline.
The plaintiffs and Gilead Sciences, Inc. in the Holley and Jones cases, particularly their case-management and discovery obligations.
What happened
Holley v. Gilead Sciences, Inc. and Jones v. Gilead Sciences, Inc. involved competing proposals for managing the cases. The main disagreements concerned whether the court could require summary jury trials over Gilead's objection and how to set a deadline for Gilead's document production.
The court adopted the plaintiffs' proposal to conduct summary jury trials, explaining that its rules and federal procedure authorized that step even without every party's consent. The court also rejected both the phrase "substantial completion" and a requirement that Gilead's lawyers certify their "best efforts." Instead, it set September 30, 2020, as the deadline for completing Gilead's production of responsive documents and electronically stored information.
Judge Jon S. Tigar ordered the parties to file a scheduling order consistent with the ruling by January 24, 2020. This order addressed case management and discovery; it did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Holley v. Gilead Sciences, Inc. · No. 4:18-cv-06972
- Jon Tigar
- Jan. 17, 2020
Background
The court considered identical competing proposed case-management schedules in two cases. The parties disagreed about whether to use summary jury trials and how to describe and schedule Gilead's production of documents and electronically stored information, or ESI.
Summary Jury Trials
A summary jury trial is a short, nonbinding proceeding designed to help parties evaluate settlement and prepare for a possible full trial. Plaintiffs asked the court to schedule these proceedings, while Gilead argued that the court lacked authority to order them over its objection and should not do so even if it had that authority.
The court rejected both arguments. It relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 and the Northern District of California's alternative-dispute-resolution rules, which authorize the court to refer a case to a summary jury trial without the consent of all parties. The court also concluded that summary jury trials would help the parties assess the cases' value, encourage earlier settlement, and identify potential issues with conducting binding jury trials. The court therefore adopted the plaintiffs' proposal to conduct summary jury trials.
Document and ESI Production
The parties also disputed whether Gilead's lawyers should have to certify that they had used "best efforts" to identify, locate, and provide responsive materials, or whether the schedule should use a deadline for "substantial completion" of production. They also proposed different dates: September 30, 2020, or November 30, 2020.
The court declined to use "substantial completion" because it was too vague to enforce. It also declined to require a written certification of "best efforts." Instead, the court stated that both sides must use all reasonable efforts to identify, locate, and provide responsive ESI and documents, because the law already imposes that obligation. The court adopted September 30, 2020, as the deadline for completing Gilead's production of responsive documents and ESI.
Disposition
Judge Jon S. Tigar resolved the case-management disagreements by adopting summary jury trials and setting the September 30, 2020 production deadline, while rejecting the proposed "substantial completion" and "best efforts" language. The parties were ordered to file a conforming proposed scheduling order by January 24, 2020. The order was procedural and did not rule on the merits of the plaintiffs' claims.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.