Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC-SRF Document 207 Filed 05/20/19 Page 1 of 50 PageID #:
`17927
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`GENENTECH, INC. and CITY OF HOPE,
`
`v.
`AMGEN INC.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendant.
`
`C.A. No. 18-924-CFC
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`EXHIBITS A AND B SUPPORT OF AMGEN INC.’S OPENING LETTER
`IN ADVANCE OF MAY 16, 2019 DISCOVERY HEARING
`
`Dated: May 20, 2019
`
`SMITH, KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS, LLP
`Neal C. Belgam (No. 2721)
`Eve H. Ormerod (No. 5369)
`1000 West Street, Suite 1501
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`P (302) 652-8400
`nbelgam@skjlaw.com
`eormerod@skjlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Amgen Inc.
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC-SRF Document 207 Filed 05/20/19 Page 2 of 50 PageID #:
`17928
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC-SRF Document 207 Filed 05/20/19 Page 3 of 50 PageID #:
`17929
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`GENENTECH, INC. and CITY OF HOPE,
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`Defendant.
`__________________________________________)
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 17-1407-GMS
`C.A. No. 17-1471-GMS
`
`v.
`
`AMGEN INC.,
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL
`OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO AMGEN INC.’S FIRST SET OF
`REQUESTS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS (NOS. 1-35)
`
`Pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and D. Del. LR 26.1
`
`and 26.2, Plaintiffs Genentech, Inc. and City of Hope (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), by undersigned
`
`counsel, hereby object and respond as follows to Defendant’s First Set of Requests for
`
`Production. These objections and responses incorporate Plaintiffs’ March 12, 2018 Objections
`
`and Responses and are intended as a supplement.
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS & OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS
`
`Pursuant to D. Del. LR 26.1(b), Plaintiffs provide the following General Objections and
`
`Objections to Definitions. These objections form a part of, and are hereby incorporated into, the
`
`response to each and every request set forth below. Nothing in those responses, including any
`
`failure to recite a specific objection in response to a particular request, should be construed as a
`
`waiver of any of these General Objections and Objections to Definitions.
`
`1.
`
`Conflicts with Rules. Plaintiffs object to each request, definition, and instruction
`
`generally to the extent that they purport to impose obligations or responsibilities different from
`
`or in excess of those imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the
`
`ME1 27091326v.1
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC-SRF Document 207 Filed 05/20/19 Page 4 of 50 PageID #:
`17930
`
`United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Plaintiffs will interpret and respond to
`
`the Requests in good faith and in accordance with the Rules.
`
`2.
`
`Privileged Information. Plaintiffs object to any part of the Requests calling for
`
`the production of information or documents that are privileged or otherwise protected from
`
`discovery pursuant to the attorney-client privilege, the accountant-client privilege, the common-
`
`interest privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege, protection, or
`
`immunity. Plaintiffs do not agree to produce such information or documents protected from
`
`discovery and will withhold or redact information or documents on that basis. If protected
`
`information or documents are inadvertently produced in response to the Requests, the production
`
`of such information or documents shall not constitute a waiver of Plaintiffs’ rights to assert the
`
`applicability of any privilege, protection, or immunity to the information or documents, to seek
`
`the return of such material, or to object to the use of such material at any stage of the action or in
`
`any other action or proceeding.
`
`Plaintiffs will comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of
`
`the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in identifying privileged material,
`
`but Plaintiffs specifically object to identifying documents on a document privilege log that were
`
`generated subsequent to October 6, 2017 (the filing of Genentech, Inc. and City of Hope v.
`
`Amgen Inc., No. 1:17-cv-01407-GMS (D. Del.)) or which reflect communications between
`
`Plaintiffs and their trial counsel (Williams & Connolly, Durie Tangri, or McCarter & English)
`
`given the irrelevance of such documents and the burden of preparing such a privilege log.
`
`3.
`
`Confidential Information Generally. Plaintiffs object to the Requests to the extent
`
`that they call for production of trade secret, proprietary, personal, commercially sensitive, third-
`
`party confidential, or other confidential information. Plaintiffs will only produce confidential
`
`ME1 27091326v.1
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC-SRF Document 207 Filed 05/20/19 Page 5 of 50 PageID #:
`17931
`
`information, including trade secret, proprietary, personal, commercially sensitive, third-party
`
`confidential, or other confidential information, that is responsive, relevant, and not otherwise
`
`protected, pursuant to the governing Protective Order and/or D. Del. LR 26.2. Plaintiffs may
`
`withhold documents on this basis (as described, for example, in General Objection No. 6), and
`
`Plaintiffs may redact from documents that they have otherwise agreed to produce information
`
`concerning research or development efforts concerning any molecules other than anti-VEGF
`
`antibodies.
`
`4.
`
`HIPAA Information. Plaintiffs object to the Requests to the extent that they call
`
`for production of individually identifiable health information, including without limitation
`
`information that would identify patients and persons associated with reporting adverse events
`
`involving human drugs and research subjects. See 21 C.F.R. §§ 20.63, 314.430. Plaintiffs are
`
`withholding such documents or information on this basis and will redact such information from
`
`any documents that they produce in this action.
`
`5.
`
`Personal Information Implicating Foreign Privacy/Data Protection Laws.
`
`Plaintiffs may, in response to certain of Amgen’s requests, produce documents from custodians
`
`or non-custodial sources located outside the United States. Foreign privacy laws, over which
`
`Plaintiffs have no control, may have a substantial impact on the nature and extent of documents
`
`that Plaintiffs can produce from such sources. Plaintiffs object to the Requests to the extent that
`
`they call for production of information from any jurisdiction outside that United States that (i)
`
`pertains to a specific individual that can be linked to that individual; or (ii) is reasonably believed
`
`by Plaintiffs to contain information about or pertaining to a specific individual that can be linked
`
`to that individual and that reveals race, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, political opinions,
`
`religious or philosophical beliefs, trade union or political party membership or that concerns an
`
`ME1 27091326v.1
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC-SRF Document 207 Filed 05/20/19 Page 6 of 50 PageID #:
`17932
`
`
`
`individual’s health. Plaintiffs are withholding such documents or information on this basis and
`
`will redact such information from any documents that they produce in this action.
`
`6.
`
`Clinical Development Information. Plaintiffs object to the Requests to the extent
`
`that they call for production of information concerning the development of bevacizumab for any
`
`indication not already approved by FDA. Such information is extremely commercially sensitive
`
`while having essentially no probative value given the parties’ claims and defenses. Accordingly,
`
`discovery of such information is not proportional to the needs of this case, and Plaintiffs are
`
`withholding such documents or information on this basis and will redact such information from
`
`any documents that they produce in this action.
`
`7.
`
`Manufacturing Information. Plaintiffs object to the Requests to the extent that
`
`they call for production of information concerning Genentech’s methods for manufacturing
`
`bevacizumab. Such information is extremely commercially sensitive. Accordingly, discovery of
`
`such information may not be proportional to the needs of this case, and Plaintiffs are withholding
`
`such documents or information on this basis and will redact such information from any
`
`documents that they produce in this action unless otherwise stated.
`
`8.
`
`Burden and Custodial Scope. Plaintiffs object to each request, definition, and
`
`instruction to the extent that it seeks “any” or “all” documents responsive to the request. Such
`
`demands are unduly burdensome and overly broad, and they seek documents that are not relevant
`
`to the claim or defense of any party nor proportional to the needs of the case (in accordance with
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)). Plaintiffs’ search for responsive documents and information will be
`
`limited to the non-custodial sources and custodians identified by Plaintiffs (for example, as
`
`defined below), agreed to by the parties, or ordered by the Court. Absent such agreement or
`
`order, Plaintiffs will not search for or produce documents from any other source or location.
`
`ME1 27091326v.1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC-SRF Document 207 Filed 05/20/19 Page 7 of 50 PageID #:
`17933
`
`Similarly, Plaintiffs object to each request, definition, and instruction as overly broad and unduly
`
`burdensome to the extent that it purports to require Plaintiffs to search for and produce electronic
`
`documents without reasonable limitations upon the scope of information to be searched or the
`
`content of the material to be searched for. Plaintiffs will only produce electronic documents as
`
`specifically indicated in their responses and/or in accordance with the electronically stored
`
`information (“ESI”) protocol that the parties are negotiating to govern this action. To the extent
`
`that Amgen’s requests conflict with the ESI protocol, Plaintiffs will comply with the ESI
`
`protocol. Plaintiffs further object to each definition, instruction, and request to the extent that it
`
`seeks documents that are unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, that are publicly available, that
`
`are already in the possession, custody, or control of Amgen or Amgen’s counsel, that are of no
`
`greater burden for Amgen to obtain than Plaintiffs, or that are obtainable from some other source
`
`that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive, that are otherwise more
`
`appropriately directed to another party, and/or to the extent that compliance would be unduly
`
`burdensome, expensive, or oppressive. Unless otherwise indicated specifically below, Plaintiffs
`
`will not produce such documents.
`
`9.
`
`Subjective Relevance Determinations. Plaintiffs object to each request for
`
`documents incorporating or calling for a subjective judgment that a document “concerns” a
`
`particular issue, “supports” a particular issue, or “refutes” a particular issue. By their subjective
`
`nature, such requests are vague and ambiguous. Such requests also intrude upon the attorney-
`
`work product protection by seeking an identification of the documents that counsel considers
`
`relevant to a particular issue. To the extent that such requests seek “all” documents, they also are
`
`overly broad and unduly burdensome because they fail to account for proportionality.
`
`ME1 27091326v.1
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC-SRF Document 207 Filed 05/20/19 Page 8 of 50 PageID #:
`17934
`
`
`
`10.
`
`Legal Determinations. Plaintiffs object to each request for documents
`
`incorporating or calling for a legal conclusion. By incorporating the need to make a legal
`
`conclusion, such requests are vague and ambiguous. Such requests also intrude upon the
`
`attorney-work product protection by seeking an identification of the documents that counsel
`
`believes satisfy the legal contention. To the extent that such requests seek “all” documents, they
`
`also are overly broad and unduly burdensome because they fail to account for proportionality.
`
`11.
`
`No Admission. In furnishing these objections and responses to the requests and in
`
`producing documents in response to the requests, Plaintiffs do not admit or concede the
`
`relevance, materiality, authenticity, or admissibility in evidence of any such request or document.
`
`All objections to the use, at trial or otherwise, of any document produced or information
`
`provided in response to the requests and to any further production are hereby expressly reserved.
`
`12.
`
`No Representation Concerning Existence of Documents. Plaintiffs’ statements
`
`that they will produce documents in response to a particular request do not mean that they have
`
`any such documents, and their response should not be construed in such a manner.
`
`13.
`
`Timing of Requests and Productions. Plaintiffs object to each discovery request,
`
`definition, or instruction to the extent that it prematurely seeks production of information prior to
`
`the deadlines provided for such information in any Scheduling Order issued by the Court.
`
`Plaintiffs object pursuant to Rule 34(b)(2)(B) to the time specified in Amgen’s Requests for
`
`Production on the basis that it is not practical, particularly with respect to Amgen’s requests that
`
`seek information that has not yet been generated. Plaintiffs will make a rolling production of
`
`documents in response to Amgen’s Requests for Production, with a first production tentatively
`
`scheduled for the end of April, 2018. Plaintiffs will complete their production of documents in
`
`response to these requests by a date that is reasonable in view of the case’s schedule and the
`
`ME1 27091326v.1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC-SRF Document 207 Filed 05/20/19 Page 9 of 50 PageID #:
`17935
`
`scope and nature of the materials requested by Amgen; Plaintiffs will substantially complete
`
`their production of documents by the date set in the Court’s scheduling order, and will complete
`
`their production no later than September 30, 2019.
`
`14.
`
`Discovery Related to Claims No Longer Being Asserted. Plaintiffs object to each
`
`discovery request, definition, or instruction to the extent that it imposes on Plaintiffs an
`
`obligation to provide discovery regarding any patent that, pursuant to the Court’s scheduling
`
`orders, is no longer being asserted against Amgen.
`
`15.
`
`Discovery Related to Damages. Plaintiffs object to each discovery request,
`
`definition, or instruction to the extent that it seeks information relevant only to Plaintiffs’ claim
`
`for damages. Such discovery is not reasonably proportional at this time in view of the Court’s
`
`stated interest in an early resolution of Amgen’s contention that Plaintiffs are not entitled to
`
`damages. Plaintiffs will supplement further their responses to the Requests when the record
`
`concerning the issue of Amgen’s contention that Plaintiffs are not entitled to damages has been
`
`developed further.
`
`16.
`
`Discovery Related to City of Hope. City of Hope objects to each discovery
`
`request, definition, or instruction to the extent that it obligates City of Hope to search for, or
`
`produce, documents in addition to the documents previously produced by Plaintiffs in one or
`
`more litigations relating to U.S. Patent No. 6,331,415 and/or U.S. Patent No. 7,923,221. City of
`
`Hope will search for and produce additional documents in response to the requests below only
`
`upon a showing of good cause, consistent with its proposal in Section B.5 of the Document
`
`Production Protocol, or after entry of a Court order declining to adopt City of Hope’s proposal.
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiffs object to Amgen’s definition of “Plaintiffs” as overly broad. Plaintiffs
`
`interpret those terms to encompass Genentech, Inc. and City of Hope.
`
`ME1 27091326v.1
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC-SRF Document 207 Filed 05/20/19 Page 10 of 50 PageID
`#: 17936
`
`18.
`
`Plaintiffs expressly reserve the right to supplement these General Objections.
`
`DEFINITIONS
`
`1.
`
`As used herein, “BLA Modules” refers to the following sections (excluding
`
`attachments) of BLA No. 125085, well as amendments or supplements thereto, which pre-date
`
`October 6, 2017:
`
`a. Module 1
`
`b. Module 2
`
`c. Module 3
`
`d. Module 4
`
`The term “BLA Modules” specifically excludes Module 5 because the burden of
`
`reviewing it for information that may be protected by HIPAA and redacting such information
`
`(see General Objection No. 4) has not been shown to be reasonably proportional to the needs of
`
`this case, particularly in view of the summary clinical information available in the Avastin
`
`prescribing information and Module 2.
`
`The term “BLA Modules” further includes a copy of each approved version of the
`
`Prescribing Information for Avastin.
`
`2.
`
`As used herein, “Patent Family Documents” refers to:
`
`a. A copy of each Patent-in-Suit;
`
`b. A copy of the application to which each Patent-in-Suit claims priority;
`
`c. A copy of the certified file history of each Patent-in-Suit;
`
`d. A copy of any re-examination file history for each Patent-in-Suit;
`
`e. Assignment records for each Patent-in-Suit;
`
`3.
`
`As used herein, “Patent Research Documents” refers to:
`
`ME1 27091326v.1
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC-SRF Document 207 Filed 05/20/19 Page 11 of 50 PageID
`#: 17937
`
`
`
`a. for Patents-in-Suit assigned to Genentech, non-privileged documents located
`
`after a reasonable search of Genentech’s database of lab notebooks for
`
`notebooks reflecting research resulting in such patents;
`
`b. for Patents-in-Suit assigned to Genentech, non-privileged documents located
`
`after a reasonable search of Genentech’s database of research reports for
`
`reports reflecting research resulting in such patents;
`
`c. for Patents-in-Suit assigned to Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., non-privileged
`
`documents located after a reasonable search of Roche’s database of lab
`
`notebooks for notebooks reflecting research resulting in such patents;
`
`d. for Patents-in-Suit assigned to Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., non-privileged
`
`documents located after a reasonable search of Roche’s database of research
`
`reports for reports reflecting research resulting in such patents;
`
`e. non-privileged documents located after a reasonable search of files in the
`
`custody of the Named Inventors reflecting research resulting in such patents;
`
`“Patent Research Documents” also includes public presentations or publications
`
`by Plaintiffs regarding the Patents-In-Suit located after a reasonable search of Genentech’s
`
`“Bluesheets” publications archive.
`
`4.
`
`As used herein, “Avastin® Sales Data” refers to documents sufficient to show
`
`revenue from U.S. sales of Avastin generated by the Genentech finance department for the time
`
`period beginning January 1, 2017 and updated periodically.
`
`5.
`
`As used herein, “Licensing Agreements” refers to non-privileged executed
`
`licenses, covenants not-to-sue, and settlement agreements related to the Patents-In-Suit, located
`
`ME1 27091326v.1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC-SRF Document 207 Filed 05/20/19 Page 12 of 50 PageID
`#: 17938
`
`after a reasonable search of the files of Plaintiffs’ legal departments, and subject to the
`
`opportunity to object and/or approval of Plaintiffs’ contractual partners.
`
`6.
`
`As used herein, “Prior Litigation Documents” refers to: (i) non-privileged
`
`documents produced by one or more of Plaintiffs in any of the following cases, located after a
`
`reasonable search of the files of Plaintiffs’ legal departments and/or Plaintiffs’ outside counsel in
`
`the case; (ii) pleadings filed and discovery responses served by one or more of Plaintiffs in any
`
`of the following cases, located after a reasonable search of the files of Plaintiffs’ legal
`
`departments and/or Plaintiffs’ outside counsel in the case, except to the extent such materials
`
`contain a third party’s confidential information; (iii) transcripts of depositions taken in any of the
`
`following cases of witnesses defended by one or more of Plaintiffs’ counsel, located after a
`
`reasonable search of the files Plaintiffs’ legal departments and/or Plaintiffs’ outside counsel in
`
`the case, except to the extent such pleadings contain a third party’s confidential information; and
`
`(iv) expert reports served by one or more of Plaintiffs in any of the following cases, located after
`
`a reasonable search of the files of Plaintiffs’ legal departments and/or Plaintiffs’ outside counsel
`
`in the case, except to the extent such materials contain a third party’s confidential information.
`
`The cases referred to above consist of:
`
`a. Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v. Genentech, Inc., IPR2017-02139 (PTAB)
`
`b. Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v. Genentech, Inc., IPR2017-02140 (PTAB)
`
`c. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al v. Genentech, Inc.,
`
`IPR2017-02031 (PTAB)
`
`d. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al v. Genentech, Inc.,
`
`IPR2017-02032 (PTAB)
`
`e. Pfizer, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., IPR2017-01489 (PTAB)
`
`ME1 27091326v.1
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC-SRF Document 207 Filed 05/20/19 Page 13 of 50 PageID
`#: 17939
`
`f. Pfizer, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., IPR2017-01488 (PTAB)
`
`g. Celltrion, Inc. et al v. Genentech, Inc., IPR2017-01373 (PTAB)
`
`h. Celltrion, Inc. et al v. Genentech, Inc., IPR2017-01374 (PTAB)
`
`i. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., IPR2016-01693 (PTAB)
`
`j. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., IPR2016-01694 (PTAB)
`
`k. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Genentech, Inc., IPR2017-00047 (PTAB)
`
`l. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Genentech, Inc., IPR2016-01373 (PTAB)
`
`m. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., IPR2016-00710 (PTAB)
`
`n. Genzyme Corporation v. GENENTECH, INC., IPR2016-00460 (PTAB)
`
`o. GENZYME CORPORATION v. Genentech Inc., IPR2016-00383 (PTAB)
`
`p. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Genentech, Inc., IPR2015-01624 (PTAB)
`
`q. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Genentech, Inc. et al, 2-16-cv-04992 (C.D.
`
`Cal.)
`
`r. Genzyme Corporation v. Genentech, Inc. et al, 2-15-cv-09991 (C.D. Cal.)
`
`s. Sanofi-Aventis US LLC et al v. Genentech, Inc. et al, 2-15-cv-05685 (C.D.
`
`Cal.)
`
`t. Eli Lilly and Company et al v. Genentech, Inc. et al, 2-13-cv-07248 (C.D.
`
`Cal.)
`
`u. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Genentech, Inc. et al, 2-13-cv-05400 (C.D.
`
`Cal.)
`
`v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Genentech, Inc. et al, 3-13-cv-02045 (N.D.
`
`Cal.)
`
`ME1 27091326v.1
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC-SRF Document 207 Filed 05/20/19 Page 14 of 50 PageID
`#: 17940
`
`
`
`w. Eli Lilly and Company et al v. Genentech, Inc. et al, 4-13-cv-00919 (N.D.
`
`Cal.)
`
`x. Human Genome Sciences Inc. v. Genentech Inc. et al, 2-11-cv-06594 (C.D.
`
`Cal)
`
`y. Genentech, Inc. et al v. Glaxo Group Limited et al, 2-11-cv-03065 (C.D. Cal.)
`
`z. Human Genome Sciences Inc. v. Genentech Inc. et al, 1-11-cv-00328 (D.
`
`Del.)
`
`aa. Human Genome Sciences Inc. v. Genentech Inc. et al, 2-11-cv-06519 (C.D.
`
`Cal.)
`
`bb. Glaxo Group Limited et al v. Genentech, Inc. et al, 2-10-cv-02764 (C.D. Cal.)
`
`cc. Glaxo Group Limited et al v. Genentech, Inc. et al, 3-10-cv-00675 (N.D. Cal.)
`
`dd. Glaxo Group Limited et al v. Genentech, Inc. et al, 0-09-cv-61608 (S.D. Fla.)
`
`ee. Centocor Inc v. Genentech Inc et al, 2-08-cv-03573 (C.D. Cal.)
`
`ff. MedImmune Inc v. Genentech Inc, et al, 2-03-cv-02567 (C.D. Cal.)
`
`gg. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al v. Genentech, Inc.,
`
`IPR2017-02029 (PTAB)
`
`hh. Hospira, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., IPR2016-01771 (PTAB)
`
`ii. Hospira, Inc. et al v. Genentech, Inc., IPR2016-01837 (PTAB)
`
`jj. Pfizer, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., IPR2018-00373 (PTAB)
`
`kk. Genentech, Inc. v. Celltech Therapeutics, Ltd., 3:1998-cv-03926 (N.D. Cal.
`
`Oct. 9, 1998) and/or Interference No. 102,572
`
`Plaintiffs have excluded from the list of cases co-pending BPCIA litigation
`
`involving the products Herceptin and Rituxan because those cases are ongoing and involve the
`
`ME1 27091326v.1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC-SRF Document 207 Filed 05/20/19 Page 15 of 50 PageID
`#: 17941
`
`
`
`interest privilege and/or any other applicable privilege, see General Objection No. 2. Plaintiffs
`
`further object to this request because it calls for a subjective relevance determination, see
`
`General Objection No. 9. Plaintiffs also object to this request to the extent that it prematurely
`
`seeks production of information prior to the deadlines proposed by Plaintiffs for the production
`
`of such information in the parties’ Joint Status Report, see General Objection No. 13.
`
`Based on the foregoing specific and General Objections, Plaintiffs will not produce
`
`documents responsive to this request at this time. In the event the Court rejects Plaintiffs’
`
`proposed case management schedule, Plaintiffs will supplement these responses promptly.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 11:
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing specific and General Objections, Plaintiffs
`
`will produce the Prior Litigation Documents.
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:
`
`All settlement agreements concerning any of the Patents-In-Suit.
`
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 12:
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate their General Objections as though fully set forth herein. Plaintiffs
`
`object to this request on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome and overly broad, particularly
`
`in view of how this request encompasses documents and things that are either irrelevant to any
`
`party’s claim or defense or not proportional to the needs of the case (in accordance with Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 26(b)(1)). For example, Defendant has not identified the proportionality justification for
`
`obtaining settlement agreements where the Patents-In-Suit concern other claims that will not be
`
`asserted in the present litigation, or wholly unrelated products or technology. Plaintiffs also
`
`object to this request to the extent it seeks documents and things protected by the attorney-client
`
`privilege, attorney work product doctrine, the common interest privilege and/or any other
`
`ME1 27091326v.1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC-SRF Document 207 Filed 05/20/19 Page 16 of 50 PageID
`#: 17942
`
`
`
`applicable privilege, see General Objection No. 2. Plaintiffs further object to this request
`
`because it calls for a subjective relevance determination, see General Objection No. 9. Plaintiffs
`
`also object to this request to the extent that it prematurely seeks production of information prior
`
`to the deadlines proposed by Plaintiffs for the production of such information in the parties’ Joint
`
`Status Report, see General Objection No. 13.
`
`Based on the foregoing specific and General Objections, Plaintiffs will not produce
`
`documents responsive to this request at this time. In the event the Court rejects Plaintiffs’
`
`proposed case management schedule, Plaintiffs will supplement these responses promptly.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 12:
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing specific and General Objections, and
`
`subject to the opportunity to object and/or approval of Plaintiffs’ licensing partners, Plaintiffs
`
`will produce the Licensing Agreements.
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13:
`
`All license agreements and covenants-not-to-sue concerning any of the Patents-In-Suit.
`
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 13:
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate their General Objections as though fully set forth herein. Plaintiffs
`
`object to this request on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome and overly broad, particularly
`
`in view of how this request encompasses documents and things that are either irrelevant to any
`
`party’s claim or defense or not proportional to the needs of the case (in accordance with Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 26(b)(1)). For example, Defendant has not identified the proportionality justification for
`
`obtaining license agreements and covenants-not-to-sue where the Patents-In-Suit concern other
`
`claims that will not be asserted in the present litigation, or wholly unrelated products or
`
`technology. Plaintiffs further object to this request to the extent it seeks documents and things
`
`ME1 27091326v.1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC-SRF Document 207 Filed 05/20/19 Page 17 of 50 PageID
`#: 17943
`
`that are equally accessible to Defendant, such as license agreements to which Amgen itself is a
`
`party. Plaintiffs also object to this request to the extent it seeks documents that contain
`
`confidential or proprietary information, particularly for non-Avastin® drug products, but that are
`
`irrelevant or not proportional to the needs of this case, see General Objection No. 3. Plaintiffs
`
`also object to this request to the extent it seeks documents and things protected by the attorney-
`
`client privilege, attorney work product doctrine, the common interest privilege and/or any other
`
`applicable privilege, see General Objection No. 2. Plaintiffs further object to this request
`
`because it calls for a subjective relevance determination, see General Objection No. 9. Plaintiffs
`
`also object to this request to the extent that it prematurely seeks production of information prior
`
`to the deadlines proposed by Plaintiffs for the production of such information in the parties’ Joint
`
`Status Report, see General Objection No. 13.
`
`Based on the foregoing specific and General Objections, Plaintiffs will not produce
`
`documents responsive to this request at this time. In the event the Court rejects Plaintiffs’
`
`proposed case management schedule, Plaintiffs will supplement these responses promptly.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 13:
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing specific and General Objections, and
`
`subject to the opportunity to object and/or the approval of Plaintiffs’ licensing partners, Plaintiffs
`
`will produce the Licensing Agreements.
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14:
`
`Documents sufficient to show the names and/or internal codes used by Plaintiffs to refer
`
`to Avastin® or any drug product embodied by the Patents-In-Suit.
`
`ME1 27091326v.1
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC-SRF Document 207 Filed 05/20/19 Page 18 of 50 PageID
`#: 17944
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DATED: April 25, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
`
`
`/s/ Daniel M. Silver
`Michael P. Kelly (# 2295)
`Daniel M. Silver (# 4758)
`Renaissance Centre
`405 N. King Street, 8th Floor
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`Tel.: (302) 984-6300
`Fax: (302) 984-6399
`mkelly@mccarter.com
`dsilver@mccarter.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs Genentech, Inc.
`and City of Hope
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Paul B. Gaffney
`David I. Berl
`Thomas S. Fletcher
`Teagan J. Gregory
`Jonathan S. Sidhu
`Williams & Connolly LLP
`725 Twelfth St. NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202) 434-5000
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Genentech, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ME1 27091326v.1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC-SRF Document 207 Filed 05/20/19 Page 19 of 50 PageID
`Case 1:17-cv-01407-CFC Document 302 Filed 03/15/19 Page 6 of 123 PageID #: 26416
`#: 17945
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC-SRF Document 207 Filed 05/20/19 Page 20 of 50 PageID
`Case 1:17-cv-01407-CFC Document 302 Filed 03/15/19 Page 20 of 123 PageID #: 26430
`#: 17946
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC-SRF Document 207 Filed 05/20/19 Page 21 of 50 PageID
`Case 1:17-cv-01407-CFC Document 302 Filed 03/15/19 Page 21 of 123 PageID #: 26431
`#: 17947
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC-SRF Document 207 Filed 05/20/19 Page 22 of 50 PageID
`Case 1:17-cv-01407-CFC Document 302 Filed 03/15/19 Page 22 of 123 PageID #: 26432
`#: 17948
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC-SRF Document 207 Filed 05/20/19 Page 23 of 50 PageID
`#: 17949
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`GENENTECH, INC. and CITY OF HOPE
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`AMGEN INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT AMGEN INC.’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF GENENTECH, INC.
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6), counsel for Defendant
`
`Amgen Inc. (“Amgen”), will take the deposition upon oral examination of Plaintiff Genentech,
`
`Inc. (“Genentech”), on the matters set forth in the attached Schedule A, on May 31, 2019 at 9:00
`
`am, at the offices of Proskauer Rose, 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400, Los Angeles,
`
`California 90067, or at such time and place as the parties mutually agree.
`
`The testimony taken under this Notice of Deposition may be used for any and all
`
`appropriate purposes as provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Local Rules. Under
`
`the Federal Rules, Genentech shall designate one or more officers, directors, managing agents, or
`
`other persons to testify on its behalf concerning each of the subject matters set forth in the
`
`Schedule A attached hereto. Genentech is further required to cause each witness to inform
`
`himself or herself on each matter as to what information