Jacksonville Police Officers and Fire Fighters Health Insurance Trust v…

Background

Defendants Gilead Sciences, Inc., Cipla, Ltd., and Cipla USA, Inc. moved to stay discovery while their motion to dismiss was pending. The court had previously found that the Trust sufficiently stated a claim under the Sherman Act based on allegations of a “reverse payment settlement,” while dismissing the Trust’s state-law claims for lack of standing and allowing an amended complaint. The opinion states that the amended complaint dropped the Sherman Act claim, added a plaintiff identified as John Doe, and continued to assert state-law claims involving an alleged reverse payment settlement.

Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) allows a court, for good cause, to issue a protective order that limits or pauses discovery to prevent undue burden or expense. A party seeking such an order must make a strong showing of a particular and specific need. The court applied a two-part test: whether the pending motion could potentially dispose of the case or the issue for which discovery is sought, and whether the motion could be decided without additional discovery.

Analysis

The court made no decision about the merits of defendants’ motion to dismiss. After a preliminary review, however, it found that defendants’ arguments were potentially dispositive. The court also found that defendants’ arguments concerning the geographic reach of California’s Cartwright Act could significantly narrow discovery even if they did not result in dismissal of that claim. These findings satisfied the first part of the test.

The court found that the motion to dismiss could be resolved without discovery. The plaintiffs argued that factual disputes required discovery but did not explain why the court could not decide the motion without it. The court therefore found that defendants satisfied the second part of the test as well.

The court further found that pausing discovery could reduce the burden and expense of discovery and would not prejudice the plaintiffs. No scheduling order had been entered, and the case-management conference had been continued until after the motion to dismiss was resolved.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion to stay discovery. The stay was pending the court’s ruling on defendants’ motion to dismiss. The opinion does not state that the court decided that motion in this order.