Procedural Posture
Plaintiff filed motions to compel further responses to a request for production of documents under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, to compel production of documents, and for an order of sanctions in a purported class action against defendant corporation. Plaintiff raised causes of action for violation of the California Labor Code, for conversion and theft of labor, and for unfair business practices under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.
Overview
Litigation lawyers deal with non-criminal areas of legal dispute and will help you defending lawsuits or filing legal claims. The court divided plaintiff's requests for production of documents into three general categories: (1) documents pertaining to plaintiff's claims and defendant's defenses; (2) documents pertaining to defendant's employment policies, practices, and procedures; and (3) documents pertaining to putative class members' hours, wages, business-related expenses, repayment of wages, termination wages, and breaks. Because plaintiff agreed to limit the scope of discovery to specific dates, the court found no merit to defendant's objections of overbreadth as to time. The court also found that all of plaintiff's document requests sought relevant information. Defendant failed to meet its burden to show that documents responsive to Category 2 document requests were "confidential proprietary information." As to Category 3, the court rejected defendant's contention that the requests were premature. The court, however, issued a limited protective order to assure protection of employees' personal information. Because defendant showed that it would be unduly burdensome to fully respond to Category 3 document requests, the court accepted defendant's proposal to provide "sample" discovery.
Outcome
The court granted plaintiff's motion to compel the documents in Categories 1 and 2. The court granted in part the motion to compel documents in Category 3 and ordered defendant to provide documents from eight California stores selected by plaintiff. The court granted in part plaintiff's motion for sanctions and ordered defendant to pay 50 percent of plaintiff's attorney fees.
Procedural Posture
After defendant pharmaceutical manufacturer raised by 400 percent the wholesale price of ritonavir, a protease inhibitor (PI) used to combat the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) virus, plaintiff consumers and others sued for violations of § 2 of the Sherman Act and Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. The manufacturer renewed its motion for summary judgment.
Overview
The manufacturer introduced ritonavir as a stand-alone PI with a daily recommended dose that cost approximately 18 dollars per day. After its release, it was discovered that, when used in small quantities with other PIs, ritonavir would "boost" the anti-viral properties of that other PI. But its use as a booster, and not a stand-alone PI, also meant that the average daily price plummeted because patients needed only a small daily dose. The court held that plaintiffs had shown injury to competition and actual exercise of market power, thus creating a material factual dispute. The court could not determine the manufacturer's correct market share percentage; that had to be determined by a jury. The hundreds of millions of dollars required, combined with the patents already in the field and the years required to get a product to the market, created a material factual dispute whether there are significant barriers to entry into the boosted market. There was evidence that the manufacturer abused its patent rights to ritonavir to maintain its monopoly in the boosted market. The court was persuaded that the manufacturer had disclaimed the use of ritonavir with other PIs to treat HIV.
Outcome
The manufacturer's renewed motion for summary judgment motion was denied.