Carefirst of Maryland, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson
2:23-cv-00629
| E.D. Va. | Aug 26, 2024Background
- Plaintiffs (Carefirst entities) allege Johnson & Johnson (J&J) unlawfully delayed competition for biosimilars to Stelara (ustekinumab), an autoimmune drug, violating antitrust and consumer protection laws.
- Plaintiffs claim J&J defrauded the USPTO into obtaining a method-of-use patent ('307 patent') and wrongfully acquired and enforced other patents to keep biosimilar competitors out.
- The motion addressed whether J&J should be compelled to produce organizational charts and extensive market data dating back to 2011, which Plaintiffs argue are needed to define relevant markets and demonstrate J&J's market power during the relevant period.
- J&J opposed on grounds of limited relevance (arguing 2022-2023 is the key focus) and undue burden given the scope and cost of discovery back to 2011.
- After court guidance and negotiations, J&J agreed to some production going back to 2016; disputes remained regarding the further scope and proportionality.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relevance of pre-2016 discovery to claims | Information dating to 2011 shows knowledge, market power, pre-conduct events | Only 2022-23 is relevant; earlier data is not needed | Relevant; evidence before 2020 may be key to defining the market |
| Proportionality of requested discovery | Necessary for full market understanding; J&J can bear costs | Excessive burden ($850k-$1.7M to produce); not proportional | Partial production back to 2014 (and to 2011 for one data RFP), balances burden |
| Scope/timing for production of organizational charts and data | Full period needed for context and to identify relevant actors | Minimal burden for org charts; major burden for extensive data | Org charts and most RFPs from 2014; specific data (RFP 92) from 2011 |
| Whether to compel production of RFP No. 92 back to 2011 | Essential data for expert analysis, minimal production burden | Agreed less burdensome, but only for specific profit/loss statements | Ordered production of full responsive data (RFP 92) from 2011 in any available form |
Key Cases Cited
- Vodrey v. Golden, 864 F.2d 28 (4th Cir. 1988) (district courts have broad discretion in discovery)
- E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus., 637 F.3d 435 (4th Cir. 2011) (market power relevant for Sherman Act § 2 claims)
- Ashland Facility Operations, LLC v. NLRB, 701 F.3d 983 (4th Cir. 2012) (broad discretion to control timing and scope of discovery)