HotSpot Therapeutics, Inc. v. Nurix Therapeutics, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 HOTSPOT THERAPEUTICS, INC., Case No. 22-cv-04109-TSH

8 Plaintiff, PUBLIC VERSION OF DISCOVERY 9 v. ORDER AT ECF NO. 173

10 NURIX THERAPEUTICS, INC., Re: Dkt. No. 157 11 Defendant.

12 13 Nurix moves to compel concerning certain requests for production (“RFPs”) and Rule 14 30(b)(6) deposition topics. ECF No. 157. The Court held a hearing on January 8, 2024, and now 15 issues this order. 16 A. Which RFPs Did Nurix Properly Move On? 17 For the RFPs, Nurix has a chart that lists a number of RFPs and then a column entitled 18 “status of HotSpot Production.” This chart does not contain any arguments concerning the 19 relevance of the requested materials, and the Court is of the view that a moving party should 20 explain why the relief it is seeking ought to be granted. Merely gesturing at a long list of RFPs is 21 unfair to the opposing party, which has no specific argument to respond to. Accordingly, the 22 Court does not consider the mere listing of an RFP in this chart to constitute a satisfactory 23 argument for why a motion to compel should be granted as to that RFP. 24 B. The Six Categories of RFPs 25 In addition, Nurix moves on six categories of RFPs. For each category, Nurix presents 26 arguments for why its motion should be granted, and each category cites specific RFPs. The 27 Court believes Nurix has properly moved to compel on all but one of the RFPs mentioned in the 1 Categories 1, 2 and 6 (RFPs 7, 34, 53, 12, 40, 13). The Court GRANTS Nurix’s motion to 2 compel as to these RFPs. It is important to understand that at this stage in the litigation, the Court 3 is not determining the validity of Nurix’s damages theories. If those theories satisfy the relevant 4 standards under Daubert, a jury will decide if they have merit or not. Generally speaking, Nurix is 5 trying to attach a large part of HotSpot’s value (and the value of the Macroceutics acquisition) to 6 the trade secrets at issue. Naturally, HotSpot thinks that is not accurate. This is likely to be a 7 highly disputed issue at trial, and the jury will have to decide who is right. The broad financial 8 discovery Nurix seeks to take is relevant and proportional to its likely damages theories. 9 Category 3 (RFPs 36, 57). The Court also GRANTS Nurix’s motion to compel as to these 10 RFPs. HotSpot is right that Nurix’s summary of these RFPs in the joint discovery letter brief does 11 not exactly capture what they ask for. But what they ask for is relevant and proportional to 12 Nurix’s likely damages theories, and so the Court enforces them as written. HotSpot suggests that 13 it may not have any responsive documents, but the Court observes that HotSpot’s responses to 14 RFPs 36 and 57 do not mirror the full scope of the requests. Regardless, nothing in this order 15 requires HotSpot to produce things it doesn’t have. 16 Category 4 (RFPs 39, 48, 59). The Court GRANTS Nurix’s motion to compel the 17 production of non-custodial documents that are responsive to these RFPs. HotSpot says it has 18 produced non-custodial documents that are responsive to RFP 51, but that RFP is not exactly the 19 same as the RFPs that Nurix moves on. 20 Category 5 (RFPs 36, 41, 6). The Court GRANTS Nurix’s motion to compel as to RFPs 21 36 and 41 because they are relevant and proportional to Nurix’s likely damages theories. The 22 Court DENIES Nurix’s motion to compel as to RFP 6 because it was not included with the joint 23 discovery letter brief and therefore the Court does not know what it asked for. 24 C. Rule 30(b)(6) Topics 25 The Court GRANTS Nurix’s motion to compel as to Rule 30(b)(6) topics 53-58 and 60 26 because those topics are relevant and proportional to Nurix’s likely damages theories. For topics 27 53 and 58, HotSpot previews that for portions of those topics, the witness might say “we didn’t do 1 topics 54-57 and 60, the Court expects the witness or witnesses to be well prepared, but also 2 || expects Nurix to understand the level of detail that even a very well prepared witness can 3 reasonably be expected to remember. The Court does not expect, for example, that a 30(b)(6) 4 || witness could simply rattle off HotSpot’s revenues, costs, profits or losses, year-by-year and 5 quarter-by-quarter, since it was founded (topic 54). The Court does expect that a prepared witness 6 could authenticate financial documents and explain them, and — independent of documents — 7 would have at least a high-level understanding of these topics. HotSpot objects that some of these 8 || topics seek information about top line financials that are attributable to its DEL program. 9 However, there is nothing wrong with Nurix asking for that information as part of fact discovery, 10 || even if HotSpot may also have an expert witness on that subject; companies know something 11 about what programs drive their financials. The Court DENIES Nurix’s motion to compel as to 12 || topics 63 and 65 because they are contention topics that improperly ask a fact witness for legal 13 || conclusions. See Zeleny v. Newsom, 2020 WL 3057467, *2 (N.D. Cal. June 9, 2020) (“a 30(b)(6) 14 || deposition is not an appropriate vehicle for taking discovery into legal contentions.”’). 2 15 || D. — Conclusion 16 Nurix’s motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part as stated above. From the 3 17 discussion at the hearing, it seems likely that the parties may have an evidentiary dispute 18 concerning whether a particular HotSpot collaboration falls within the scope of certain of the 19 RFPs addressed above. If so, the parties should file a joint discovery letter brief, together with 20 relevant evidence, to enable the Court to resolve that dispute. 22 23 Dated: January 8, 2024 24 AL \ - ly □ THOMAS S. HIXSON 25 United States Magistrate Judge 26 27 28