City and County of San Francisco v. Purdue Pharma L.P.

Background

The court considered a joint discovery letter from the City and County of San Francisco and Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and its subsidiaries. The letter described disputes over the plaintiff’s first and second sets of requests for production, which are requests for documents under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34.

Rulings on the Discovery Disputes

Jurisdiction-specific search terms

The plaintiff asked the court to require Endo to use additional search terms tailored to particular jurisdictions. The court found that the plaintiff’s proposals were timely and that the requested terms were highly relevant. But because the parties were negotiating the issue, the court denied without prejudice the plaintiff’s motion to compel Endo to implement the proposed terms. The parties were ordered to meet and confer and, if they could not resolve the issue, submit another joint discovery dispute letter.

Bates-number references

The plaintiff argued that Endo’s written responses to the second set of requests for production were inadequate because Endo did not identify documents by individual Bates numbers. Bates numbers are identifying numbers assigned to produced documents. The court concluded that Endo’s responses and references to Bates-number ranges were sufficient under Rule 34 and denied the plaintiff’s motion to compel more detailed responses.

Par’s unbranded marketing materials

The plaintiff sought additional custodians and documents concerning the unbranded marketing efforts of Par, an Endo subsidiary. Endo argued that it had already produced materials from two marketing employees and that Par’s marketing was directed at distributors and pharmacies rather than opioid prescribers. The court rejected those arguments, finding the marketing materials relevant and the request proportional to the needs of the case. The court granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel and ordered Endo to identify additional custodians responsible for Par’s unbranded marketing efforts and produce documents related to Par’s marketing campaigns requested in the first and second sets of requests for production.

Eric Vandal’s files

The plaintiff also sought files belonging to Eric Vandal, whom the opinion describes as one of the original marketing managers behind Endo’s Percocet product. Endo identified relevant files on four 16-year-old backup tapes and an unknown number of additional tapes that might contain 2005 email-server data. Before deciding whether production was required, the court ordered Endo to estimate the time and cost of restoring the tapes. The court therefore denied without prejudice the plaintiff’s motion to compel production of Vandal’s custodial files and ordered the parties to meet and confer before submitting any further dispute.

Disposition

The order resolved discovery motions rather than the underlying claims. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denied without prejudice the motion concerning jurisdiction-specific search terms, denied without prejudice the motion concerning Eric Vandal’s custodial files, denied the motion for more detailed responses, and granted the motion concerning Par’s unbranded marketing efforts.