Natural Alternatives International, Inc. v. Bactolac Pharmaceutical, Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:19-cv-05354
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Natural Alternatives v. Bactolac, Judge Schofield denied as moot Egopharma’s application and ordered it to produce subpoenaed documents by January 10, 2020.
Non-party Egopharma, LLC, doing business as Controlled Labs, was ordered to produce responsive documents by January 10, 2020. The plaintiff was directed to handle confidentiality designations under the existing protective order.
What happened
Natural Alternatives International, Inc. v. Bactolac Pharmaceutical, Inc. involved a subpoena that the plaintiff served on non-party Egopharma, LLC, doing business as Controlled Labs. Egopharma said the requested documents contained confidential business information, including product formulas and pricing information.
Egopharma asked for a conference about seeking an order to limit or protect the subpoena and requested more time to respond. Its proposed protective order would have allowed it to mark some materials as confidential or for attorneys’ eyes only.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied the application as moot and ordered Egopharma to produce documents responsive to the subpoena by January 10, 2020. The order also addressed how the documents would be designated under the existing protective order.
The detailed version
- Natural Alternatives International, Inc. v. Bactolac Pharmaceutical, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-05354
- Lorna Schofield
- Dec. 31, 2019
Background
The plaintiff served a document subpoena on non-party Egopharma, LLC, doing business as Controlled Labs. The subpoena sought documents in 12 categories. The opinion states that Egopharma’s registered agent in Delaware received the subpoena on December 3, 2019, and that the plaintiff agreed in writing to extend Egopharma’s response deadline to December 18, 2019.
Egopharma stated that it had electronically provided documents it considered responsive on December 4, 2019. After reviewing those documents, Egopharma’s counsel asserted that they included confidential and proprietary information concerning product formulations, product pricing, and pricing strategies. Some documents might also have been subject to confidentiality agreements.
Requested Relief
Egopharma asked for a pre-motion conference concerning a proposed motion to quash or modify the subpoena and/or obtain a protective confidentiality order. A motion to quash seeks to cancel or limit a subpoena. Egopharma proposed allowing it to designate certain materials as confidential or for attorneys’ eyes only. It also requested more time to respond to the subpoena, submit objections, or move to quash if necessary to preserve its rights.
The letter cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3)(B)(i), which permits a court to quash or modify a subpoena requiring disclosure of a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information. Egopharma also stated that plaintiff’s counsel had not responded to its communications about a confidentiality order.
Ruling
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied the application as moot. The order directed non-party Egopharma, LLC to produce documents responsive to the subpoena by January 10, 2020. To the extent required by the protective order already entered in the case, the plaintiff was directed to designate the produced documents consistently with Egopharma’s designations.
The order resolved the subpoena-related application and did not decide the underlying claims between Natural Alternatives International, Inc. and Bactolac Pharmaceutical, Inc.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.