903 F.3d 733
8th Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiff Jan Vallejo sued Amgen (and others) alleging Enbrel caused her husband Steve Vallejo’s myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and death; case proceeded in phased discovery with the first phase limited to general causation.
- Magistrate judge curtailed Vallejo’s broad discovery requests after finding them overbroad and disproportionate (including 206 adverse-event search terms and requests for extensive company-wide custodial searches); limited searches to 15 MDS-specific terms, required production of the original BLA and certain non-public studies, and allowed deposition of Amgen’s global safety officer (Dr. Janet Isles) as the initial witness.
- Vallejo pressed for more depositions and documents (including company org charts and non-Amgen TNF-blocker data); magistrate and district courts denied or limited relief and required Vallejo to disclose any general-causation experts.
- Vallejo deposed Dr. Isles; the deposition was suspended and later reconvened under judicial supervision after disputes; Vallejo’s counsel repeatedly questioned beyond the court’s scope and reargued rulings.
- Amgen sought sanctions for what it characterized as repeated attempts to circumvent discovery limits; magistrate awarded sanctions under Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and the court’s inherent power (reduced award); district court affirmed; Vallejo appeals both the discovery limits and sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope/proportionality of discovery (general causation phase) | Vallejo: magistrate weighed proportionality without Amgen affidavits quantifying burden; limits were erroneous and prejudicial | Amgen: Vallejo’s requests were facially overbroad and unduly burdensome; counsel briefing and practical demonstrations showed immense burden | Court: No abuse of discretion; limits were proper under Rule 26(b)(1) and supported by common-sense assessment and counsel’s courtroom search results |
| Alleged factual misrepresentations by Amgen in briefing | Vallejo: Amgen misstated facts (e.g., that Dr. Isles was sole safety witness; Amgen doesn’t track other TNF studies) | Amgen: Statements were accurate in context (Isles was the relevant safety officer then; single study ≠ routine tracking) | Court: No misrepresentation that affected rulings; record supports Amgen’s representations |
| Right to cross-examine Amgen’s expert at discovery hearing | Vallejo: Denial of cross-examination of Dr. Greenberg denied fair process because his opinions underpinned Amgen’s objections | Amgen: Court did not rely on Greenberg’s testimony for key rulings; BLA and other materials were produced | Court: Any error (if any) was harmless; rulings stood on other bases (common-sense, counsel’s in-court search) |
| Sanctions (Rule 11, § 1927, inherent power) | Vallejo: Counsel acted in good faith trying to obtain discovery; motions sought clarification, not harassment | Amgen: Plaintiff repeatedly relitigated decided issues, filed premature deposition notice, and multiplied proceedings vexatiously | Court: Sanctions affirmed—counsel unreasonably multiplied proceedings and reargued rulings; district court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 785 F.3d 1193 (8th Cir. 2015) (discovery rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Harvey v. Schoen, 245 F.3d 718 (8th Cir. 2001) (standards for reviewing discovery rulings)
- Roberts v. Shawnee Mission Ford, Inc., 352 F.3d 358 (8th Cir. 2003) (narrow, deferential review of discovery rulings)
- Willhite v. Collins, 459 F.3d 866 (8th Cir. 2006) (deference to district court on sanctions decisions)
- Hofer v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 981 F.2d 377 (8th Cir. 1992) (harmless-error standard in discovery context)
- Glastetter v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 252 F.3d 986 (8th Cir. 2001) (distinguishing FDA evaluation standards from tort causation)
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) (recognition of district court’s inherent power to sanction for abuse of judicial process)