Sidhu v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc.
- Beth Freeman
- 5:22-cv-01603
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Sidhu v. Bayer, Magistrate Judge Van Keulen ordered discovery to proceed despite pending motions concerning standing, sanctions, and amendment.
Priya Sidhu must be able to pursue the disputed discovery, and Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc. must serve amended responses by April 10, 2024 and meet and confer about discovery protections and procedures by April 17, 2024.
What happened
In Sidhu v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc., the parties disputed whether Bayer had to produce documents requested by Priya Sidhu. Bayer argued that Sidhu lacked standing and that the discovery was not proportional, while Sidhu sought to amend her complaint and replace herself with two new plaintiffs.
The court noted that discovery had not been stayed and that the pending motions had not resolved whether Sidhu lacked standing. It also found that the requested discovery could concern the claims generally and that Bayer had already compiled documents for production.
Magistrate Judge Susan Van Keulen ordered Bayer to serve amended discovery responses by April 10, 2024, and ordered the parties to meet and confer about a protective order and electronic-discovery protocol by April 17, 2024. The court terminated the discovery-dispute submission.
The detailed version
- Sidhu v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc. · No. 5:22-cv-01603
- Beth Freeman
- Apr. 3, 2024
Background
The court considered the parties’ joint submission concerning Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s obligation to produce documents responding to Priya Sidhu’s discovery requests. Bayer argued that it did not have to provide discovery because Sidhu, the sole plaintiff, lacked standing. Bayer also had a pending motion for sanctions against Sidhu’s counsel, alleging that counsel did not sufficiently investigate the claims before filing the action; that motion requested dismissal.
Sidhu had separately moved to amend the operative complaint. The proposed amendments would substitute two new plaintiffs for her. Both motions were pending and scheduled for a May 9 hearing before Judge Beth L. Freeman.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that discovery was not stayed and that neither party had asked for a stay. Therefore, discovery had to proceed. The court rejected Bayer’s argument that Sidhu could not obtain discovery because she might lack standing, reasoning that the pending motions had not yet determined whether she lacked standing. The court also stated that the possibility that Bayer’s sanctions motion could result in dismissal did not automatically stay discovery.
The court further concluded that Bayer had not shown that the requested discovery was disproportionate to the needs of the case. Sidhu represented that the proposed amendments would make no substantive changes except to allegations specific to the plaintiff. Bayer did not assert that the requested discovery related only to Sidhu rather than to the claims generally as applied to proposed class members. Bayer had also already compiled a production of documents concerning the requests.
Finally, the court stated that Bayer could begin producing documents while the parties worked out confidentiality protections and procedures for producing electronically stored information. Bayer did not need to wait for the court to enter a stipulated protective order or electronic-discovery protocol.
Order
The court ordered Bayer to serve amended responses to the disputed discovery requests by April 10, 2024. It ordered the parties to meet and confer by April 17, 2024, regarding a stipulated protective order and a stipulated protocol for electronically stored information. The court terminated Docket No. 84. The order did not decide the pending standing, sanctions, or amendment motions.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.