Bionpharma Inc. v. Corerx, Inc.
- John Koeltl
- 1:21-cv-10656
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Bionpharma v. CoreRx, Judge Figueredo scheduled a discovery conference on CoreRx’s request to block two directors’ depositions, without ruling on that request.
Bionpharma and CoreRx, particularly CoreRx directors Vern Davenport and Jeff Edwards, were affected by the discovery dispute and the scheduled conference.
What happened
Bionpharma sued CoreRx over a manufacturing agreement for enalapril maleate oral liquid solution. After CoreRx settled a patent lawsuit brought by Azurity and stopped supplying the product, Bionpharma sought to question CoreRx directors Vern Davenport and Jeff Edwards about the settlement and alleged coordination between CoreRx and Azurity.
CoreRx argued that the directors lacked relevant or unique knowledge because they were not involved in CoreRx’s daily management or settlement decisions. CoreRx asked the court to issue a protective order canceling the deposition notices.
Judge Valerie Figueredo did not rule on whether the depositions would be canceled in the text provided. The court scheduled a discovery conference and directed Bionpharma to respond to CoreRx’s letter by February 9, 2023.
The detailed version
- Bionpharma Inc. v. Corerx, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-10656
- John Koeltl
- Jan. 31, 2023
Background
Bionpharma brought a contractual dispute concerning CoreRx’s agreement to manufacture and supply enalapril maleate oral liquid solution. After Azurity Pharmaceuticals sued CoreRx for patent infringement, CoreRx settled that lawsuit and agreed to stop supplying the product to Bionpharma. Bionpharma then filed this action.
Bionpharma previously sought communications between Azurity and CoreRx and sought depositions of two other CoreRx directors. After the court ordered production of communications, Bionpharma did not pursue those earlier depositions at that time. CoreRx’s letter states that Bionpharma later noticed the depositions of Vern Davenport and Jeff Edwards.
CoreRx’s Request
CoreRx sought a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). A protective order can limit or prevent discovery when appropriate. CoreRx asked the court to quash, or cancel, the deposition notices for Davenport and Edwards.
CoreRx argued that the directors had no relevant or unique knowledge about CoreRx’s settlement with Azurity, the decision to stop supplying Bionpharma, or Bionpharma’s allegation that CoreRx and Azurity improperly coordinated the lawsuit or settlement. CoreRx relied on declarations stating that neither director participated in the settlement, knew about the planned settlement before it was entered, managed CoreRx’s daily operations, or made recommendations about stopping product sales. CoreRx also stated that both directors were partners at QHP Capital and that their depositions would burden them and QHP.
Court Action
The provided text does not contain an express ruling granting or denying CoreRx’s request to quash the deposition notices. Instead, the court scheduled a discovery conference for February 14, 2023, directed the parties’ counsel to participate, and ordered Bionpharma to respond to CoreRx’s letter by February 9, 2023. The text therefore shows case-management and discovery directions, not a final ruling on the requested protective order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.