Fate Therapeutics, Inc. v. Shoreline Biosciences, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 FATE THERAPEUTICS, INC.; and Case No.: 22-cv-00676-H-MSB WHITEHEAD INSTITUTE FOR 12 BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH, ORDER: 13 Plaintiffs, (1) GRANTING JOINT MOTIONS 14 v. FOR DETERMINATION OF A 15 DISCOVERY DISPUTE; AND SHORELINE BIOSCIENCES, INC.; and

[Doc. Nos. 248, 249.] 17 Defendants. (2) DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 18 MOTIONS TO COMPEL WITHOUT

20 On April 14, 2023, the parties filed two joint motions for determination of a 21 discovery dispute. (Doc. Nos. 248, 249.) In the first joint filing, Plaintiffs Fate 22 Therapeutics, Inc. (“Fate”) and Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research 23 (“Whitehead”) request to add Dr. Robert Hollingsworth as an additional ESI custodian 24 pursuant to the Court’s October 12, 2022 order governing discovery of electronically stored 25 information (“ESI Order”). (Doc. No. 248.) Plaintiffs assert that adding Dr. Hollingsworth 26 as an additional ESI custodian is necessary and warranted because Defendant Shoreline 27 Biosciences, Inc. (“Shoreline”) identified him in its interrogatory responses and 28 1 accompanying document production as having information regarding Shoreline’s current 2 use of iPSCs. (Id.) 3 In response, Shoreline asserts that it has provided Plaintiffs with documents from 4 the five agreed-upon custodians as required by the Court’s ESI Order. (Id.) Shoreline 5 further asserts that Plaintiffs have failed to establish any direct need to add Dr. 6 Hollingsworth as an additional custodian given that Plaintiffs admit that they have 7 documents regarding Dr. Hollingsworth’s involvement with iPSCs at Shoreline and 8 Plaintiffs will be able to depose Dr. Hollingsworth in this case on or after April 18, 2023 9 about his knowledge of any iPSC lines purchased by Shoreline. (Id.) 10 Under the Court’s October 12, 2022 ESI Order, each party is provided five ESI 11 custodians. (Doc. No. 71 at 2 ¶ 4.) If a party seeks to add additional custodians, that party 12 may seek relief from the Court to compel the requested discovery. (Id. at 3 ¶ 8.) And the 13 Court will consider contested requests for additional custodians “upon a showing of good 14 cause and distinct need based on the size, complexity, and issues of this specific case.” (Id. 15 at 4 ¶ 10.) 16 After considering the parties’ arguments and the record in this action, the Court, 17 exercising its sound discretion, denies Plaintiffs’ request. Plaintiffs have failed to 18 demonstrate good cause to add Dr. Hollingsworth as an additional ESI custodian in this 19 case. Plaintiffs do not identify any distinct and unique discovery that they expect to obtain 20 from Dr. Hollingsworth’s ESI that they were unable to obtain from the five other ESI 21 custodians or the other discovery produced in this action. (See also Doc. No. 71 at 2 ¶ 6 22 (explaining that “ESI sources” should be “reasonably likely to contain unique, discoverable 23 ESI”).) Plaintiffs just generally state that Dr. Hollingsworth has information “regarding 24 Shoreline’s current use of iPSCs.” (Doc. No. 248.) This is insufficient to demonstrate 25 “good cause” and “distinct need.” Further, Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate the 26 relevance of the discovery sought. (See Doc. No. 255 at 33 n.18.) As a result, the Court 27 denies Plaintiffs’ request to add Dr. Hollingworth as an additional ESI custodian in this 28 action. 1 In the second joint filing, Plaintiffs move to compel Rule 30(b)(6) testimony from 2 Shoreline in response to topics 1-11, 13-15, 21-25, 27-28, 30-33, 36-40, 42-53, and 57 of 3 Plaintiffs’ Rule 30(b)(6) notice served on March 20, 2023. (Doc. No. 249.) Plaintiffs 4 contend that Shoreline must provide relevant 30(b)(6) testimony “regarding its use of 5 iPSCs and the products made therefrom” and provide 30(b)(6) testimony “on relevant 6 damages-related topics.” (Doc. No. 249.) Plaintiffs contend that the scope of discovery in 7 this action is set by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, not Shoreline’s view of the merits. 8 (Id.) Plaintiffs contend that Shoreline’s refusal to provide the requested testimony 9 improperly ignores Plaintiffs’ March 21, 2023 amended infringement contentions and that 10 Shoreline incorrectly asserts that the Court has already rejected Plaintiffs’ damages theory. 11 (Id.) 12 In response, Shoreline argues that Plaintiffs’ motion should be denied because 13 Plaintiffs pursue discovery in violation of the Court’s February 28, 2023 discovery order. 14 (Id.) Shoreline contends that Plaintiffs’ topics side-step the Court’s claim construction 15 order, which made clear that “cloning efficiency” is specific to nuclear transfer (SCNT), 16 not iPSC reprogramming. (Id.) In addition, Shoreline argues that Plaintiffs are seeking 17 damages-related discovery that the Court has already rejected regarding Shoreline’s 18 investors and the valuation of Shoreline. (Id.) Shoreline represents that, regardless, it will 19 provide 30(b)(6) testimony regarding its knowledge of the iPSCs it has purchased, 20 including how they were made and used (short of irrelevant, proprietary specifics of post- 21 reprogramming genetic modifications). (Id.) 22 Plaintiffs’ pending motion to compel regarding 30(b)(6) testimony involves multiple 23 issues that were addressed by the Court in its April 19, 2023 Order denying Plaintiffs’ three 24 motions for reconsideration. (See Doc. No. 255.) To the extent Plaintiffs are seeking 25 discovery that is inconsistent with the Court’s April 19, 2023 order, the Court’s February 26 28, 2023 discovery order, and/or the Court’s February 28, 2023 claim construction order, 27 the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion to compel. The scope of discovery in this action is set 28 by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), but, as the party seeking to compel discovery, 1 || Plaintiffs carry the burden “‘of establishing that [their] request satisfies the relevancy 2 ||requirements of Rule 26(b)(1).’” Williams v. Cnty. of San Diego, No. 17-CV-00815- 3 || MMA-JLB, 2019 WL 2330227, at *3 (S.D. Cal. May 31, 2019) (quoting Bryant v. Ochoa, 4 ||No. 07cv200 JM (PCL), 2009 WL 1390794, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2009)); accord 5 || Louisiana Pac. Corp. v. Money Mkt. 1 Institutional Inv. Dealer, 285 F.R.D. 481, 485 (N.D. 6 ||Cal. 2012). For the reasons explained in the Court’s April 19, 2023 order denying 7 || Plaintiffs’ motions for reconsideration and the Court’s February 28, 2023 discovery order, 8 Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to demonstrate the relevance of the broad 9 ||discovery sought. Further, the Court orders the parties to meet and confer regarding 10 || Plaintiffs’ discovery requests in light of the Court’s April 19, 2023 order. Accordingly, 11 |/the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion to compel without prejudice to Plaintiffs narrowing 12 || their request following the parties’ meet and confer and demonstrating the relevance of the 13 || discovery sought.' 15 ||} DATED: April 20, 2023 | | ll | | | 16 MARILYN ©. HUFF, Distri ge 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 || 27 ||! The Court notes that it is unable to fully assess whether any of the information 28 Plaintiffs are seeking via their motion to compel might be relevant given how broad and vague Plaintiffs’ discovery request is.