Opinion

In re Lantus Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation

Court
District Court, D. Massachusetts
Filed
Mar 16, 2022
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

In re LANTUS DIRECT PURCHASER CIVIL ACTION

ANTITRUST LITIGATION NO. 16-12652-LTS

SCHEDULING ORDER AND ORDER ON MOTIONS TO

COMPEL AND FOR LEAVE TO TAKE NONPARTY DEPOSITIONS

This matter is before the court on (1) the plaintiffs’ “Emergency Motion to Compel

Sanofi to Produce Updated Transactional Data” (Docket No. 353), (2) the “Defendants’ Motion

for Expedited Leave to Take Three Nonparty Depositions After March 4, 2022” (Docket No.

359), and (3) the parties’ “Joint Submission Regarding Case Schedule” (Docket No. 369). After

consideration of the parties’ written submissions and their oral arguments, it is hereby

ORDERED as follows:

Motions to Compel and for Leave to Take Depositions

1. For the reasons stated in open court, the plaintiffs’ motion to compel the

production of updated transactional data is DENIED. As agreed by the parties and endorsed by

the court in its July 14, 2021 Scheduling Order, Sanofi was obligated to produce transaction

data reflecting sales of Lantus and Lantus SoloSTAR between February 1, 2014 and December

31, 2020, but had no obligation to produce data for 2021. Under such circumstances, Sanofi

had no duty to supplement its production to include post-2020 information. See, e.g., Hnot v.

Willis Group Holdings Ltd., No. 01 Civ. 6558 (GEL), 2006 WL 2381869, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17,

2006) (ruling that defendants had no obligation to supplement responses to discovery requests

by producing post-2001 information where only request to which defendants had a duty to

respond sought information through December 31, 2001). Nevertheless, the plaintiffs may

seek additional information as follows:

a. The plaintiffs may propound an interrogatory upon Sanofi requesting the

identity of any direct purchasers who purchased Lantus or Lantus SoloSTAR

for the first time in 2021.

b. Sanofi shall respond to the plaintiffs’ interrogatory by March 29, 2022.

2. Sanofi’s motion for leave to take nonparty depositions is ALLOWED. As agreed,

Sanofi’s request to take Lilly’s deposition has been withdrawn. Sanofi shall complete the

depositions of Merck and Mylan by April 15, 2022.

Scheduling Order

3. The parties shall comply with the following deadlines set forth in their

“[Proposed] Amended Scheduling Order” (Docket No. 369-1):

a. The plaintiffs shall file any motion for class certification and serve supporting

class certification expert reports by the later of (i) four weeks after the court

rules on the parties’ pending summary judgment motions (regarding SEE and

ownership or control exception); or (ii) four weeks after the completion of

the Merck and Mylan depositions.

b. The new deadlines for all class certification events described in the

September 24, 2021 Scheduling Order (Docket No. 282), which follow the

deadline for plaintiffs to move for class certification and serve supporting

class certification expert reports, shall be amended to follow the new

deadline described in paragraph 3(a) herein, while maintaining the same

intervals between those events as in the September 24, 2021 Scheduling

Order.

c. The deadline for the party with the burden of proof to serve merits expert

reports shall be the later of (i) one week after the new deadline for plaintiffs

to move for class certification and serve supporting expert reports; or (ii) four

weeks after the Schwarzhaupt, Geppert and Sieber depositions.

d. The new deadlines for all other events set forth in the September 24, 2021

Scheduling Order shall be amended to follow the new deadline for opening

merits expert reports described in paragraph 3(c) herein, while maintaining

the same intervals between those events as in the September 24, 2021

Scheduling Order.

/ s / Judith Gail Dein

Judith Gail Dein

Dated: March 16, 2022 United States Magistrate Judge

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.