Case 1:18-cv-01363-CFC Document 102 Filed 04/15/19 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 13841
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`GENENTECH, INC. and CITY OF HOPE,
`
`Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants,
`
`V.
`
`AMGEN INC.,
`
`Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff.
`
`GENENTECH, INC. and CITY OF HOPE,
`
`Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants,
`
`V.
`
`SAMSUNG BIOEPIS CO., LTD,
`
`Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`C.A. No. 18-924-CFC
`
`C.A. No. 18-1363-CFC
`
`STIPULATION AND
`
`ORDER ON COORDINATED DISCOVERY
`
`The parties propose the following limits on coordinated discovery for these actions:
`
`1. Requests for Admission.
`
`Plaintiffs may serve a maximum of 150 requests for admission on each Defendant. 1
`
`Collectively, Defendants may serve a maximum of 100 common requests for admission (i.e.,
`
`requests for admission that are served on behalf of all Defendants) on Plaintiffs. Each Defendant
`
`may serve up to 50 additional requests for admission on Plaintiffs. The preceding limits on
`
`requests for admission are exclusive of requests for admission solely for the purpose of
`
`authenticating documents or establishing that documents are business records. The parties will
`
`1 "Defendant" shall be defined to include all parties sued by Plaintiffs in each respective action.
`The two Defendants are: (1) Amgen, Inc. (C.A. No. 18-cv-924-CFC) and (2) Samsung Bioepis
`Co., Ltd. (C.A. No. l 8-cv-1363-CFC).
`
`MEI 30153448v.l
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`GENENTECH, INC. and CITY OF HOPE,
`
`Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants,
`
`V.
`
`AMGEN INC.,
`
`Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff.
`
`GENENTECH, INC. and CITY OF HOPE,
`
`Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants,
`
`V.
`
`SAMSUNG BIOEPIS CO., LTD,
`
`Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`C.A. No. 18-924-CFC
`
`C.A. No. 18-1363-CFC
`
`STIPULATION AND
`
`ORDER ON COORDINATED DISCOVERY
`
`The parties propose the following limits on coordinated discovery for these actions:
`
`1. Requests for Admission.
`
`Plaintiffs may serve a maximum of 150 requests for admission on each Defendant. 1
`
`Collectively, Defendants may serve a maximum of 100 common requests for admission (i.e.,
`
`requests for admission that are served on behalf of all Defendants) on Plaintiffs. Each Defendant
`
`may serve up to 50 additional requests for admission on Plaintiffs. The preceding limits on
`
`requests for admission are exclusive of requests for admission solely for the purpose of
`
`authenticating documents or establishing that documents are business records. The parties will
`
`1 "Defendant" shall be defined to include all parties sued by Plaintiffs in each respective action.
`The two Defendants are: (1) Amgen, Inc. (C.A. No. 18-cv-924-CFC) and (2) Samsung Bioepis
`Co., Ltd. (C.A. No. l 8-cv-1363-CFC).
`
`MEI 30153448v.l
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-01363-CFC Document 102 Filed 04/15/19 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 13842
`
`work together to reach an agreement concerning the authenticity of the parties' respective
`
`documents to reduce the need for requests for admission to authenticate documents.
`
`2. Interrogatories.
`
`A maximum of 25 interrogatories, including contention interrogatories, are permitted for
`
`Plaintiffs to each Defendant and for each Defendant to Plaintiffs, with no restrictions on use.
`
`3. Depositions.
`
`a.
`
`Limitation on Hours for Deposition Discovery.
`
`Defendants are collectively limited to taking testimony by deposition upon oral
`
`examination up to a total of 150 hours for fact witnesses, including 30(b)(6) deponents.
`
`Additionally, each Defendant may individually take testimony by deposition upon oral
`
`examination up to a total of 50 hours for fact witnesses, including 30(b )( 6) deponents. 2 From
`
`each Defendant, Plaintiffs may take up to a total of 105 hours of testimony by deposition upon
`
`oral examination of fact witnesses, including 30(b )( 6) deponents. If any additional patents are
`
`asserted against a Defendant, then Plaintiffs and that Defendant will each receive an additional
`
`10 hours of deposition time per newly asserted patent.
`
`Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, depositions shall be limited to one day of seven
`
`hours, except that:
`
`i.
`
`depositions of named inventors on the patents-in-suit may be extended up
`
`to a total of 10 hours, provided that the inventors are noticed in more than
`
`2 If prior to May 13, 2019, a single Defendant remains in the case, then that Defendant and
`Plaintiffs will meet and confer in good faith to determine how many hours of testimony the
`Defendant may take in view of the depositions that remain to be taken and the remaining allotted
`individual hours. If, after May 13, 2019, a single Defendant remains in the case, that Defendant
`may rely on any deposition testimony obtained by either Defendant.
`
`MEI 30153448v.l
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-01363-CFC Document 102 Filed 04/15/19 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 13843
`
`one of these actions and the notice of intent to do so is included in the
`
`deposition notice;
`
`ii.
`
`depositions of 30(b)(6) deponents that have been designated for topic(s)
`
`noticed by more than one Defendant may be extended up to a total of 10
`
`hours, depending on the breadth of the topic(s) for which the designation
`
`is made;
`
`iii.
`
`depositions of deponents noticed under 30(b)(l) who are also designated
`
`under 30(b)(6) may be extended up to a total of 10 hours; and
`
`1v.
`
`depositions in which the witness is testifying in a non-English language
`
`and a translator is being used shall be limited to two consecutive days of
`
`up to a total of14 hours (or four days for up to a total of28 hours for
`
`depositions in which more than one Defendant is participating).
`
`Depositions of third parties who are not current or former employees of a party do not count
`
`against the total number of depositions allotted to the parties. The parties will use good faith
`
`efforts so that each fact witness will be deposed only once in any of these coordinated actions.
`
`b.
`
`Location of Depositions.
`
`The parties will work in good faith to determine a reasonable and convenient location for
`
`each deposition.
`
`c.
`
`Noticing and Scheduling ofDepositions of Current and Former Employees.
`
`Noticing and scheduling of depositions of a party's current and former employees shall
`
`proceed according to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court's local rules. The
`
`parties agree to work in good faith to minimize the burden and avoid taking duplicative
`
`discovery of any fact witness.
`
`MEI 30153448v.1
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-01363-CFC Document 102 Filed 04/15/19 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 13844
`
`d.
`
`Noticing and Scheduling of Party 30(b)(6) Depositions.
`
`Deposition notices pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) shall be served
`
`and filed according to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court's local rules. No later
`
`than 17 days after service of a 30(b)(6) deposition notice, the party receiving the notice shall
`
`serve (i) any objections to the noticed topics (including topics for which the noticed party will
`
`not produce a witness), and (ii) a notice identifying the designated witness(es) and, if more than
`
`one witness is being designated to testify with respect to the noticed topics, the particular topics
`
`with respect to which each witness is being designated. The parties shall meet and confer to
`
`determine the exact dates and locations of the 30(b )( 6) depositions within one week of the
`
`service of the identification of witnesses and, absent good cause, each such witness shall be
`
`offered for deposition within one month of the parties' meet-and-confer provided that the
`
`number of witnesses to be deposed in response to the Rule 30(b)(6) is a reasonable number.
`
`e.
`
`Daily Schedule & Holidays.
`
`Unless otherwise agreed, depositions shall take place only on weekdays and shall
`
`presumptively start at 9:00 AM. local time. The parties will use good faith efforts to schedule
`
`depositions on dates that are convenient for the fact witness.
`
`f.
`
`Objections.
`
`The objection of counsel for one party to a question need not be repeated by counsel for
`
`other parties on the same side to preserve that objection on behalf of such other parties. Any
`
`objection shall be deemed to have been made (a) on behalf of all other parties on the same side,
`
`and (b) if a form objection, on all grounds for a form objection.
`
`MEI 30153448v. l
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-01363-CFC Document 102 Filed 04/15/19 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 13845
`
`DATED: April 11, 2019
`
`Case 18-924-CFC:
`
`MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
`
`SMITH KA 1ZENSTEIN & JENKINS LLP
`
`Isl Daniel M Silver
`Michael P. Kelly (#2295)
`Daniel M. Silver (#4758)
`Alexandra M. Joyce (#6423)
`Renaissance Centre
`405 North King Street, 8th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 984-6300
`mkelly@mccarter.com
`dsilver@mccarter.com
`ajoyce@mccarter.com
`
`William F. Lee
`Lisa J. Pirozzolo
`Emily R. Whelan
`Kevin S. Prussia
`Andrew J. Danford
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
`HALE AND DORR LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`(627) 526-6000
`william. lee@wilmerhale.com
`lisa.pirozzolo@wilmerhale.com
`emily. whelan@wilmerhale.com
`kevin.prussia@wilmerhale.com
`andrew.danford@wilmerhale.com
`
`Robert J. Gunther Jr.
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
`HALE AND DORR LLP
`7 World Trade Center
`250 Greenwich Street
`New York, NY 10007
`(212) 230-8800
`robert.gunther@wilmerhale.com
`
`Isl Eve H. Ormerod
`Neal C. Belgam (No. 2721)
`Eve H. Ormerod (No. 5369)
`1000 West Street, Suite 1501
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 652-8400
`nbelgam@skjlaw.com
`eormerod@skjlaw.com
`
`Michelle Rhyu
`Susan Krumplitsch
`Daniel Knauss
`COOLEYLLP
`3175 Hanover Street
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130
`P 650-843-5287
`skrumplitsch@cooley.com
`mrhyu@cooley.com
`dknauss@cooley.com
`
`Orion Armon
`COOLEYLLP
`380 Interlocken Crescent, Suite 900
`Broomfield, CO 80021-8023
`(720) 566-4119
`oarmon@cooley.com
`
`Eamonn Gardner
`COOLEYLLP
`4401 Eastgate Mall
`San Diego, CA 92121-1909
`(858) 550-6086
`egardner@cooley.com
`
`MEI 30153448v.l
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-01363-CFC Document 102 Filed 04/15/19 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 13846
`
`Daralyn J. Durie
`Adam R. Brausa
`DURIE TANGRI LLP
`217 Leidesdorff St.
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`(415) 362-6666
`ddurie@durietangri.com
`abrausa@durietangri.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`Genentech, Inc. and City of Hope
`
`Case 18-1363-CFC:
`
`Nancy Gettel
`Thomas Lavery, IV
`AMGEN INC.
`One Amgen Center Drive
`Thousand Oaks, CA 91320-1799
`P 805-447-1000
`ngettel@amgen.com
`tlavery@amgen.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Amgen Inc.
`
`RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.
`
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`
`Isl Jason J. Rawnsley
`Frederick L. Cottrell, III (#2555)
`Jason J. Rawnsley (#5379)
`920 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 651-7700
`cottrell@rlf.com
`rawnsley@rlf.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`Isl David E. Moore
`David E. Moore (#3983)
`Bindu Palapura (#5370)
`Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor
`1313 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 951
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 984-6000
`dmoore@potteranderson.com
`bpalapura@potteranderson.com
`
`Dimitrios T. Drivas
`Scott T. Weingaertner
`Amit H. Thakore
`Holly Tao
`WHITE & CASE LLP
`1221 A venue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10020
`Tel: (212) 819-8200
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Samsung Bioepis
`Co., Ltd
`
`SO ORDERED this 11:;;_y of April, 2019.
`
`MEI 30153448v.l
`
`-6-
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
