In re Dexilant (Dexlansoprazole) Antitrust Litigation

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: October 16, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-02785
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 IN RE DEXILANT Case No. 25-cv-02785-JSC (DEXLANSOPRAZOLE) ANTITRUST 8 LITIGATION This Document Applies to: ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 9 TO STAY DISCOVERY PENDING ALL CASES RESOLUTION OF THE MOTION TO 10 DISMISS 11 Re: Dkt. 134

12 Plaintiffs allege Takeda unlawfully paid TWi to delay market entry of a generic version of 13 Takeda’s drug Dexilant. Defendants have moved to dismiss all claims in the lawsuit. (Dkt. No. 14 132.) In the meantime, they seek to stay all discovery until after the motion to dismiss is resolved. 15 Plaintiffs ask Defendants to produce certain limited discovery, what they call “go get” documents. 16 After carefully considering the parties’ written submissions, including Defendants’ motion to 17 dismiss, and with the benefit of oral argument on October 16, 2025, the Court DENIES 18 Defendants’ motion to stay. Defendants have not shown good cause for not producing the “go 19 get” documents involving Takeda and TWi and for not beginning to meet and confer regarding 20 ESI protocols and document requests. 21 DISCUSSION 22 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not automatically stay discovery upon the filing 23 of a motion to dismiss. And unlike cases brought pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation 24 Reform Act, no statute stays discovery pending resolution of a motion to dismiss in an antitrust 25 lawsuit. But Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) states “[t]he court may, for good cause, issue 26 an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden 27 1 bear the burden of showing good cause for such a protective order. See Blankenship v. Hearst 2 Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975). 3 Exercising its “wide discretion” to govern discovery, see Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 4 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988), the Court concludes Defendants have not shown good cause for a stay of 5 all discovery and orders Defendants to produce some of the limited documents Plaintiffs seek. In 6 particular, by November 13, 2025, Defendants shall produce, to the extent they are in their 7 possession, custody, or control: 8 • Takeda’s settlement agreements with TWi relating to Dexilant; 9 • Paragraph IV certifications filed by TWi against Takeda relating to Dexilant; 10 • TWi’s Abbreviated New Drug Application and supplements relating to Dexilant; 11 and 12 • Unredacted filings and expert reports in any patent litigation Takeda brought 13 against TWi to the extent the filings do not involve confidential information 14 regarding nonparties to this litigation. 15 The above documents are indisputably relevant and central to the case. So, Defendants’ citation to 16 cases in which the court stayed discovery because resolution of the motion to dismiss would likely 17 simplify the case and give the parties a greater understanding of what discovery is needed is 18 unpersuasive. See, e.g., Subspace Omega, LLC v. Amazon Web Servs., Inc., No. 2:23-CV-01772- 19 TL, 2024 WL 4451404, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 9, 2024). And production of these documents 20 now will facilitate Plaintiffs’ development of their post-motion discovery requests. A blanket 21 stay, in contrast, will inevitably delay case resolution. 22 Defendants’ attempt to distinguish cases in which similar “go get” documents in reverse 23 payment cases were produced is unavailing. They emphasize the defendants in those cases agreed 24 to production of similar “go get” documents. (Dkt. No. 134 at 4 n.2.) But that those defendants 25 agreed to produce the documents without requiring a court order merely highlights the lack of 26 good cause for Defendants’ refusal to produce similar documents in this case. 27 The Court also orders Defendants to meet and confer with Plaintiffs on an ESI protocol, 1 discovery requests to help guide the meet and confer discussions. Again, delaying these necessary 2 || discussions will needlessly delay case resolution. Further, given the amount of time that has 3 passed since the settlement was entered, the need to promptly identify custodians, documents, and 4 || systems is more pronounced. Defendants’ insistence Plaintiffs should not complain about any 5 delay because they waited 10 years to file suit assumes Defendants will win on their motion to 6 dismiss’s statute of limitations argument. But the Court cannot make that assumption at this 7 || juncture. Instead, what is undisputed is given the passage of time it is even more important to 8 || promptly begin the discovery discussions. 9 A further Case Management Conference is scheduled for November 19, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. 10 || via Zoom video. An updated Joint Case Management Conference Statement is due November 12, 11 2026. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 13 Dated: October 16, 2025 td 15 Pot Mey AC@UELINE SCOTT CORLE = 16 United States District Judge

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28