Shire LLC v. Abhai, LLC

323 F. Supp. 3d 112
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Shire LLC v. Abhai, LLC. Read the opinion of the Court — 298 F. Supp. 3d 303
District Court, District of Columbia·Decided July 11, 2018·No. CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-13909-WGY·Published

Opinion

As instructed by the Court, Shire divided its billing entries into the three categories. See Shire LLC, 298 F.Supp.3d at 335 ; Pls.' Mem. at 6-9. The following is a description of the work performed by Shire due to Abhai's misconduct:

For category (a) ["time wasted dealing with Abhai's inaccurate stability and dissolution data"], the time entries included in the calculation from September 2016 to April 2017 include:
• time spent analyzing Abhai's ANDA containing dissolution and stability data;
• time spent reviewing Abhai's lab notebooks containing dissolution and stability data;
• time spent working with [Juniper Pharma Services ("Juniper") ] on dissolution testing;
• time spent working on [Dr. Shen Yung Luk's ("Dr. Luk") ] opening expert report related to dissolution testing (including the four pages in his 37-page opening report plus the short description in Appendix E of his dissolution testing methodology);
• time spent working with [Dr. Jennifer Dressman ("Dr. Dressman") ] on her reply report addressing dissolution data;
• time spent preparing Dr. Dressman for deposition;
• time spent reviewing [Dr. Diane Burgess's ("Dr. Burgess") ] expert report on inaccurate dissolution data;
• time spent deposing Dr. Burgess on inaccurate dissolution data;
• time spent preparing Dr. Luk for deposition;
• time spent deposing Abhai/[KVK Tech, Inc. ("KVK") ] employees on inaccurate dissolution data;
• time spent preparing Dr. Dressman and Dr. Luk for trial on inaccurate dissolution data; and *116• time spent preparing to cross examine Dr. Burgess on inaccurate dissolution data.
...
For category (b)["discovering the litigation misconduct"], the time entries included in the calculation from April 2017 to August 2017 include:
• time spent during first trial reviewing newly disclosed dissolution and stability data;
• time spent opposing Abhai's attempt to amend the pretrial order and introduce evidence at the first trial not produced during fact discovery;
• time spent at the court hearing convened to determine the best path forward;
• time spent drafting discovery requests;
• time spent reviewing Abhai's responses to interrogatories and request for production;
• time spent reviewing Abhai documents produced after the first trial in April 2017;
• time spent pressing Abhai for more information and additional documents;
• time spent moving to compel production of documents and additional information, including related legal research;
• time spent researching the relationship between KVK and Abhai;
• time spent collecting dissolution testing for third parties to show issues with Abhai's testing; and
• time spent preparing for and taking the depositions of Anthony Tabasso, Jordan Rees, Ashvin Pancheal, Frank Nekovanik, Murty Vepuri, Ranga Namburi, Todd Leo, Benjamin Roembke, Sameer Late, and Kevin O'Loughlin.
...
For category (c)["dealing with Abhai's revised stability and dissolution data"], the time entries included in the calculation from April 2017 to September 2017 include:
• time spent developing a response to the revised stability and dissolution data;
• time spent analyzing Abhai's document productions in light of revised stability and dissolution data;
• time spent with Dr. Luk and Juniper regarding new dissolution studies being conducted;
• time spent with Dr. Dressman on a supplemental expert report addressing Abhai's revised stability and dissolution data;
• time spent working with consulting experts to understand issues raised by the revised dissolution data;
• time spent collecting information about other dissolution studies for Adderall XR, including those in Shire's NDA;
• time spent moving to compel Abhai to produce more documents and provide additional information relevant to understanding the revised stability and dissolution data; and
• time spent preparing Dr. Dressman for the second trial.

Shire's total request for fees and costs as a result of the misconduct is $2,335,034.91. See Pls.' Mem., Ex. A at 86. Abhai disagrees and argues that Shire's award should be reduced to $998,465.91. Def.'s Resp. at 16. Abhai argues that Shire is not entitled to all the fees associated with the following categories of billing entries:

• "time spent analyzing Abhai's ANDA containing dissolution and stability data;"
• "time spent reviewing Abhai's lab notebooks containing dissolution and stability data;"
• "time spent working with Juniper on dissolution testing;"
*117• "time spent working on Dr. Luk's opening expert report related to dissolution testing;"
• "time spent preparing Dr. Luk for deposition;"
• "time spent preparing Dr. Luk for trial on inaccurate dissolution data;"
• "Shire's discovery motion practice;"
• "Shire's depositions of current and former KVK employees;"
• "time spent researching the relationship between KVK and Abhai and the ownership of KVK;"
• "time spent with Dr. Luk and Juniper regarding new dissolution studies being conducted" and "work performed by Dr. Luk and Juniper;"
• "time spent collecting dissolution testing [from] third parties;"
• "time spent collecting information about other dissolution studies for Adderall XR;" and
• "fees and costs associated with Dr. Dressman."

Id. at 4-14 (quoting Pl's Mem. at 7-9).

Abhai is correct that Shire is not entitled to all the fees associated with the above-referenced entries because they are not all but-for results of Abhai's misconduct. See Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 1178, 1187, 197 L.Ed.2d 585 (2017).

A. Standard

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

Shire LLC v. Abhai, LLC, 323 F. Supp. 3d 112 (D.D.C. 2018).

323 F. Supp. 3d 112 (Shire LLC v. Abhai, LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.
501 U.S. 32 (Supreme Court, 1991)
International Union, United Mine Workers v. Bagwell
512 U.S. 821 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Fox v. Vice
131 S. Ct. 2205 (Supreme Court, 2011)
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger
581 U.S. 101 (Supreme Court, 2017)
Specialty Retailers, Inc. v. Main Street NA Parkade, LLC
804 F. Supp. 2d 68 (D. Massachusetts, 2011)