Perrigo Pharma International Designated Activity Co. v. Mead Johnson & Co. LLC

Background

Perrigo Pharma International Designated Activity Co. filed this action against Mead Johnson & Co. LLC. Mead Johnson asked the court to stay, or pause, discovery while its motion to dismiss the amended complaint was pending. The opinion is an endorsement of Mead Johnson’s request.

Parties’ Positions

Mead Johnson argued that its motion to dismiss was likely to dispose of the amended complaint in its entirety. It also argued that resolving the motion could significantly narrow or eliminate the issues remaining in the case, so allowing discovery to continue could impose an undue burden and waste the parties’ resources. Mead Johnson said that Perrigo had identified only delay as potential prejudice and argued that delay alone was insufficient to deny the requested stay.

Ruling

Judge Edgardo Ramos granted Mead Johnson’s request to stay discovery pending resolution of Mead Johnson’s motion to dismiss. The court found that Mead Johnson had raised viable grounds for dismissing the amended complaint, which might narrow or eliminate the remaining issues. The court also found that staying discovery at that stage would not unduly prejudice Perrigo. The opinion does not decide the motion to dismiss itself.