Edgar v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ltd.
2:22-cv-02501
D. Kan.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs (including Anne Arundel County) allege Teva and others engaged in unlawful reverse-payment settlements to monopolize the Nuvigil drug market, violating antitrust and RICO laws.
- Early in litigation, discovery was bifurcated, with Phase I limited to whether the plaintiffs' claims are timely under the statute of limitations.
- Anne Arundel initially designated five custodians from its Office of Personnel for Phase I document production.
- Defendants argued these custodians' files lacked Phase I-relevant documents and moved to compel Anne Arundel to add three in-house counsel as additional custodians.
- The discovery protocol required custodians to likely possess documents relevant to the timeliness issues.
- The court rules on whether Anne Arundel must designate additional attorney custodians based on proportionality, relevance, and duplicate evidence concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Anne Arundel's Phase I custodian selection was proper | Office of Personnel custodians are sufficient; attorneys' files would be duplicative | Existing production is deficient; in-house attorneys likely have unique, relevant documents | Existing custodian selection was deficient |
| Whether additional in-house attorneys should be custodians | No unique, non-duplicative relevant docs from in-house; undue burden | Specific attorneys (esp. Tyler) involved in timeliness-related decisions | Only in-house counsel Tyler must be added as a custodian |
| Whether including attorney custodians is proportional | The burden (reviewing, logging) outweighs likely benefit; mostly privileged docs | Burden is reasonable; other parties did this; many docs already privileged/logged | Burden not shown to outweigh benefit; proportional to needs |
| Whether Marshall and Klasmeier should also be custodians | Their role in relevant litigation is minimal; not key custodians | Their involvement suggests possible relevant unique documents | No, their involvement not significant enough |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Syngenta AG MIR 162 Corn Litig., 14-md-02591-JWL (D. Kan.) (courts may compel additional custodians if a party shows likely unique, relevant information)
- Garcia v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 06-2198-JWL (D. Kan.) (moving party must show more than mere speculation to compel additional custodians)
- Firefighters' Ret. Sys. v. Citco Grp. Ltd., 13-373-SDD-EWD (M.D. La.) (courts intervene if custodian designations are manifestly unreasonable or production is deficient)