Painters & Allied Trades Dist. Council 82 Health Care Fund v. Forest Labs., Inc. (In re Celexa & Lexapro Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig.)
288 F. Supp. 3d 483
D.D.C.2018Background
- Plaintiffs (two individual actions and the Painters fund) allege Forest Laboratories engaged in fraudulent marketing of Celexa/Lexapro for pediatric use and bring RICO, unjust enrichment, and state consumer protection claims.
- Two clinical trials are implicated: MD-18 (Forest-sponsored, U.S., 2000–2001) and Study 94404 (conducted by Lundbeck). MD-18 had a packaging/dispensing error where some active patients received commercially colored pills, and Forest notified sites and the FDA.
- Fact discovery closed in Painters (July 2016) and Kiossovski (Jan. 2017); parties agreed to a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition after close of discovery to address the packaging error.
- Forest produced two documents about the MD-18 dispensing error shortly before the 30(b)(6) deposition; plaintiffs sought broader supplementation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1) and moved to compel. Magistrate Judge Bowler denied the motion.
- Painters served a subpoena ad testificandum on Lundbeck about Study 94404 nearly a year after discovery closed; Forest moved to quash and the magistrate granted the motion.
- Plaintiffs objected to both magistrate orders; the district court reviews under the "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard and affirms both magistrate rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Forest must supplement discovery under Rule 26(e)(1) to produce all documents related to MD-18 packaging error | Kiossovski: two late-produced documents reveal new evidence; full supplementation and reopened discovery required | Forest: produced substantial MD-18 materials earlier; the two documents completed obligations and further production would be cumulative | Magistrate order denying compel affirmed: Forest satisfied Rule 26(e)(1); no basis to reopen discovery |
| Whether the court erred in treating FDA findings as dispositive of relevance | Plaintiffs: magistrate relied on incorrect legal premise that FDA is exclusive judge of safety/efficacy | Forest: magistrate did not rely on exclusivity; relied on cumulative nature of requested discovery | Rejected: magistrate did not state FDA exclusivity; ruling not clearly erroneous or contrary to law |
| Whether subpoena to Lundbeck violated the scheduling order and should be quashed | Painters: attempted service before discovery closed and Forest knew; good cause exists to modify schedule given Hague Convention issues | Forest: no agreement to extend discovery; subpoena untimely and duplicative | Magistrate order quashing subpoena affirmed: Rule 16(b) requires good cause and judge's consent; untimely subpoena insufficient to reopen discovery |
| Whether magistrate's orders should be set aside under Rule 72(a) | Plaintiffs: requested district judge overturn magistrate rulings | Forest: magistrate applied proper standards and factual deference | Denied: district court finds no clear error or legal error; magistrate rulings affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Gargiulo v. Baystate Health Inc., 279 F.R.D. 62 (D. Mass. 2012) (importance of magistrate judges' role in complex discovery)
- Green v. Cosby, 160 F. Supp. 3d 431 (D. Mass. 2016) (standard for clear-error review of magistrate factual findings)
- Phinney v. Wentworth Douglas Hosp., 199 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1999) (definition of "clear error" standard)
- PowerShare, Inc. v. Syntel, Inc., 597 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2010) (de novo review of pure questions of law from magistrate rulings)
- In re IDC Clambakes, Inc., 727 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 2013) (sliding-scale review for mixed questions of law and fact)