Bueno v. Merck & Co., Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California
DecidedJanuary 17, 2023
Docket3:22-cv-00522
StatusUnknown

This text of Bueno v. Merck & Co., Inc. (Bueno v. Merck & Co., Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bueno v. Merck & Co., Inc., (S.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Case No.: 22cv522-H(BLM) 11 SPENCER BUENO; and RICHARD PARKER,

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 13 v.

14 MERCK & CO, INC.; MERCK SHARP & [ECF No. 31] DOHME CORP.; ORGANON & CO.; 15 ORAGNON LLC; and DOES 1-10, inclusive,

16 Defendants. 17 18 On January 6, 2023, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Determination of Dispute 19 Regarding Proposed Stipulated Protective Order (“Motion”). ECF No. 31. The parties agree on 20 all the terms of the Protective Order with the exception of the underlined language below: 21 7.1 Basic Principles. Received Party may use Protected Material that is disclosed or produced by another Party or by a Non-Party in connection with this Action only 22 for prosecuting, defending, or attempting to settle the Action or another action involving substantially similar claims, against the same defendants (or some of the 23 same defendants), on behalf of a plaintiff (or plaintiffs) represented by one or 24 more of the same attorneys who represent any plaintiff in the Action. Such Protected Material may be disclosed only to the categories of persons and under 25 the conditions described in this Order. When the Action has been terminated, a 26 Receiving Party must comply with the provisions of Section 16 below. 27 Motion at 2. Plaintiffs seek entry of the Protective Order with the disputed language, which they refer 1 to as a “cross-use provision.” Id. at 3. Plaintiffs argue that the language should be included in 2 the protective order because it “furthers the interests of efficiency and judicial economy and 3 reduces cost.” Id. at 4. Plaintiffs state that without such language there would be repeated 4 requests for the same documents, different judges ruling on the same discovery dispute,1 and 5 a need to seek multiple amendments to the Protective Order. Id. at 4-6. Plaintiffs further 6 indicate that their requested provision is not an effort to circumvent the Ninth Circuit’s holding 7 in Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003); instead, Plaintiffs argue 8 that Foltz does not apply. Motion at 6. To support their position, Plaintiffs point to factual 9 differences between the above-titled case and Foltz, and they claim courts across the country 10 favor cross-use provisions in complex litigation. Id. at 6-8. 11 Defendants argue that Foltz is applicable here and Plaintiffs’ requested language 12 “impermissibly contravenes settled California procedure concerning disclosure of confidential 13 material in a ‘collateral matter.’” Motion at 9. Defendants further indicate that many of the cases 14 that Plaintiffs rely on pre-date Foltz or follow California procedure, which is inapplicable here. 15 Motion at 13-15. Defendants also argue that following Foltz’s principles is especially appropriate 16 here where there are “material differences seen throughout the Singulair cases[,]” as the various 17 Plaintiffs “arrived at the medicine with their own unique medical history; was prescribed the 18 medicine based on their own preexisting conditions . . . ; and allegedly experienced diverse 19 effect and varied injuries at different periods during their course of usage.” Id. at 15. 20 Defendants indicate that despite calling it a “cross-use provision,” Plaintiffs seek to share 21 information with collateral litigants, making Foltz further applicable. Id. at 9. Defendants 22 represent that a protective order without Plaintiffs’ requested language will not prevent the 23 sharing of discovery. Id. at 17. 24

25 1 There are currently 357 cases, involving 363 plaintiffs, that “involve[] claims that branded or 26 generic Singulair caused neuropsychiatric injuries in plaintiffs.” Motion at 4. These pending 27 cases are being overseen by thirteen different judges and involve the same defendants. Id. Of the 357 cases, 356 “are led by the same attorneys representing Plaintiffs here, Kimberly Beck 1 While the Ninth Circuit “strongly favors access to discovery materials to meet the needs 2 of parties engaged in collateral litigation[,]” courts should not automatically approve a request 3 to share discovery. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2003) 4 (citing Beckman Indus. Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 475 (9th Cir. 1992)). Instead, under 5 Foltz, the Ninth Circuit requires that a collateral litigant “demonstrate the relevance of the 6 protected discovery materials to the collateral proceedings and its general discoverability 7 therein.” Id. This requirement aims to “prevent[] collateral litigants from gaining access to 8 discovery materials merely to subvert limitations on discovery in another proceeding.” Id. The 9 Ninth Circuit explains: 10 Allowing the parties to the collateral litigation to raise specific relevance and 11 privilege objections to the production of any otherwise properly protected materials in the collateral courts further serves to prevent the subversion of 12 limitations on discovery in the collateral proceedings. These procedures also 13 preserve the proper role for each of the courts involved: the court responsible for the original protective order decides whether modifying the order will eliminate the 14 potential for duplicative discovery. If the protective order is modified, the collateral courts may freely control the discovery processes in the controversies before them 15 without running up against the protective order of another court. 16 17 Id. The Court finds that Foltz governs here. Despite Plaintiffs referring to the disputed 18 language as a “cross-use provision,” the results remain the same—sharing information with 19 collateral litigants in collateral matters. Accordingly, the reasoning and holding in Foltz dictate 20 the exclusion of Plaintiffs’ language. The Court agrees with Defendants and finds that Plaintiffs 21 have failed to establish a legal or factual basis to permit the requested cross-use provision in 22 the Protective Order. First, most of the cases Plaintiffs rely on to support their argument that 23 cross-use provisions are favored across the country pre-date Foltz.2 Second, as noted by 24

25 2 The exceptions are Twilio, Inc. v. Telesign Corp., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52532 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 26 5, 2017) and Apple, Inc. v. Samsungs Elecs. Co., Ltd, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51884 (N.D. Cal. 27 Apr. 12, 2012). Twilio and Apple are distinguishable here because in both cases the parties had agreed that “cross-use” language should be incorporated in the protective orders. Twilio, 1 Defendants, courts in the Ninth Circuit repeatedly have applied Foltz in similar situations, and 2 have determined that a cross-use, or sharing, provision violates Foltz because it allows collateral 3 litigants to circumvent Foltz’s relevancy principles and procedures. See Motion at 12-13; see 4 also Kelly v. Provident Life & Accident Ins., Co., 2008 WL 5132851, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Dec 5, 2008) 5 (determining such language “interferences with the requirement in Foltz that the 6 demonstrate to the Court the relevance of the protected discovery to the collateral 7 proceedings.”) (citation omitted); see also Nuvasive, Inc. v. Alphatec Holdings, Inc., 2019 WL 8 201440, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2019) (“The Court will not permit collateral litigants to gain 9 automatic access to Defendants’ confidential materials without providing some procedural 10 safeguards regarding the dissemination of those materials, and without following proper 11 procedure[,]” as outlined in Foltz).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Bueno v. Merck & Co., Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bueno-v-merck-co-inc-casd-2023.