Case 2:19-cv-15517-CCC-MF Document 61 Filed 08/21/20 Page 1 of 8 PageID: 658
`
`NOT FOR PUBLICATION
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`
`
`
`
` Civil Action No.: 19-15517 (CCC)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`−1−
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IQVIA INC. and IMS SOFTWARE
`SERVICES, LTD.,
`
` Plaintiffs,
`v.
`
`
`
`VEEVA SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`_____________________________________
` Civil Action No.: 19-18558 (CCC)
`
`
`
`VEEVA SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`IQVIA INC. and IMS SOFTWARE
` OPINION
`SERVICES, LTD.,
`
`
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`FALK, U.S.M.J.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IQVIA Inc. and IMS Software Services (together, “IQVIA”) and Veeva Systems are
`
`
`
`
`
`
`involved in an all-encompassing battle regarding alleged trade secret theft and allegations of
`
`
`
`
`
`antitrust violations. This fight is presently spread over three cases, the two captioned above and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the first-filed matter of IQVIA Inc. v. Veeva, Inc., 17-177 (CCC) (“IQVIA I”). Presently before
`
`
`
`
`the Court is IQVIA’s motion to consolidate the two cases above – IQVIA II and IQVIA III – and
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-15517-CCC-MF Document 61 Filed 08/21/20 Page 2 of 8 PageID: 659
`
`stay them pending resolution of IQVIA I. [ECF No. 33.]1 Veeva consents to consolidation of
`
`IQVIA II and III but opposes the motion to stay. The motion is fully briefed. Oral argument is
`
`not necessary. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). For the reasons set forth below, the motion is
`
`GRANTED.
`
`BACKGROUND2
`
`
`
`IQVIA is engaged in the business of providing market research, analytics, technology and
`
`services to the life sciences, medical device, and diagnostics and healthcare industries. Veeva
`
`Systems, Inc. is an information and technology services company and competitor of IQVIA.
`
`IQVIA I: In January 2017, IQVIA I was filed. IQVIA I alleges that Veeva has engaged
`
`in corporate theft and misconduct, including the repeated misuse and mishandling of confidential
`
`and proprietary information over a period of years. IQVIA claims that it provides clients with,
`
`inter alia, market research products that combine healthcare data, market research, and
`
`proprietary analytics, and at times, IQVIA granted Veeva access to this confidential and
`
`proprietary information through Third Party Limited License Agreements. IQVIA contends that
`
`Veeva used its confidential and proprietary information improperly and for the purpose of
`
`developing and improving Veeva’s own data and technology products and to assist in marketing
`
`and promoting Veeva’s competing brand.
`
`The IQVIA I Complaint alleges: (1) Federal Theft of Trade Secrets, the Defend Trade
`
`
`1 The Court refers to IQVIA v. Veeva, 19-15517 (CCC) as “IQVIA II” and Veeva v. IQVIA, 19-
`18558 (CCC) as “IQVIA III.” Although Veeva is the Plaintiff in IQVIA III, the matters are
`referred to in this way for ease of reference.
`
` 2
`
` The background is drawn from the parties’ papers and from prior Opinions, see, e.g., Quintiles
`IMS v. Veeva, 2017 WL 2766166 (D.N.J. June 23, 2017). Direct citations are mostly omitted.
`
`
`
`
`
`−2−
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-15517-CCC-MF Document 61 Filed 08/21/20 Page 3 of 8 PageID: 660
`
`Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1836 (2) Theft of Trade Secrets (New Jersey state law; N.J.S.A. §
`
`56:15); (3) Tortious Interference (New Jersey state law); (4) Federal False and Misleading
`
`Advertising, in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125; (5) Unfair Trade Practices (New
`
`Jersey state law); and (6) Unjust Enrichment (New Jersey state law). Veeva has responded with
`
`counterclaims alleging antitrust violations. Veeva contends that IQVIA violated antitrust law by
`
`refusing to grant it access to data to be used in Veeva’s Master Data Management (“MDM”)
`
`software.
`
`IQVIA I has been pending for three years and has been litigated heavily. Discovery is
`
`ongoing and is being managed by Special Master Dennis M. Cavanaugh, U.S.D.J. (ret.), who has
`
`presided over 16 conferences, the production of millions of pages of documents and 70
`
`depositions, and decided two dozen motions. IQVIA has also filed what it describes as a case
`
`dispositive spoliation motion, which remains pending.
`
`IQVIA II: In 2018, while IQVIA I was pending, IQVIA received requests from Veeva
`
`to access its software for use in a new Veeva product - Veeva Nitro. IQVIA states that,
`
`“because of Veeva’s illegal conduct [alleged in IQVIA I] IQVIA has, to date, generally not
`
`granted” third party licenses to Veeva to load IQVIA’s data into Veeva Nitro. Veeva,
`
`contending this refusal to grant third-party licenses constitutes further antitrust misconduct,
`
`discussed with IQVIA the potential to amend its antitrust counterclaims in IQVIA I. When those
`
`negotiations failed, IQVIA filed IQVIA II as a declaratory judgment action. The IQVIA II
`
`complaint seeks a declaration that:
`
`IQVIA is not liable to Veeva based on any decisions to enter into TPA Agreements
`permitting IQVIA’s Market Research Offerings to be inputted into Veeva Nitro, or any
`later-introduced Veeva [] products, under any federal antitrust law, including Section 2 of
`the Sherman Act, or the laws of the states of New Jersey or California.
`
`−3−
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-15517-CCC-MF Document 61 Filed 08/21/20 Page 4 of 8 PageID: 661
`
`
`
`IQVIA III: The day after IQVIA II was filed in New Jersey, Veeva filed IQVIA III in
`
`the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The suit alleges that
`
`IQVIA’s business practices relating to licensing and the Veeva products violate antitrust laws –
`
`essentially, the opposite contention of IQVIA II. On September 30, 2019, the Honorable
`
`William H. Alsup, U.S.D.J. transferred IQVIA III to this Court, where it was assigned docket
`
`number 19-18558 (CCC).
`
`
`
`The Current Motion: On May 15, 2020, IQVIA filed, in IQVIA II, the current motion to
`
`consolidate IQVIA II and IQVIA III and to stay the two cases pending resolution of IQVIA I.
`
`IQVIA contends that resolution of IQVIA I will drastically simplify if not completely resolve the
`
`two later filed cases, in addition to conserving judicial resources – all without prejudicing Veeva.
`
`Veeva consents to consolidation of matters II and III. However, Veeva contends that it would
`
`be prejudiced by a stay of the later filed actions and that resolution of IQVIA I will not control
`
`matters II and III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A stay pursuant to the Court’s inherent authority is completely discretionary. See, e.g.,
`
`Bechtel Corp. v. Local 215 Laborers’ Int’l Union of N.A., 544 F.2d 1207, 1215 (3d Cir. 1976).
`
`Deciding whether to stay a case requires “an exercise in judgment, which must weigh competing
`
`interests and maintain an even balance.” Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 255-56 (1936).
`
`Considerations generally include: the hardship to the moving party should the case proceed; the
`
`potential prejudice to the non-moving party; the length of the requested stay; the similarity of the
`
`issues; and judicial economy. Id.; see also Akishev v. Kapustin, 23 F. Supp. 3d 440, 446 (D.N.J.
`
`
`
`
`
`−4−
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-15517-CCC-MF Document 61 Filed 08/21/20 Page 5 of 8 PageID: 662
`
`2014).3
`
`DECISION
`
`
`
`The parties’ dispute may span three cases, but in truth all the different slices come from
`
`the same pie. IQVIA believes that Veeva has misappropriated and misused its trade secrets and
`
`wants to limit or deny further access to same because of the alleged behavior. Veeva contends
`
`that it has done nothing wrong and that IQVIA is abusing the antitrust laws to damage a
`
`competitor. While this is an oversimplification of the three cases, that is the basic gist of the
`
`matter. And whether it’s presented through the prism of one active case or three, is beside the
`
`point. For the reasons below, the first filed action should be litigated to conclusion and IQVIA II
`
`and III shall be stayed pending that decision.
`
`
`
`First, the issues between and among the cases are indisputably similar and related. Most
`
`fundamentally, a finding in IQVIA’s favor on the affirmative trade secret claims in the first case
`
`would appear to go a long way toward resolving the entire litigation bundle involving these
`
`parties. See, e.g., Novell Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 731 F.3d 1064, 1075 (10th Cir. 2013) (a
`
`
`3 Veeva’s papers suggest a heightened standard should apply to IQVIA’s request for a stay. It
`contends that in order to obtain a stay of matters II and III, IQVIA should have to show that its
`right to summary judgment in IQVIA I be “clear and unmistakable” and that “as a matter of issue
`preclusion” such a judgment will have preclusive effect in the later filed actions. See Opp’n Br.
`9.
`
`The Court rejects this elevated standard. The stay of civil litigation is always
`discretionary, see Landis, 299 U.S. 248, 255-56, and while similarity of issues is a factor –
`perhaps the most important one – a party moving for a discretionary stay is not required to show
`clear and unmistakable entitlement to summary judgment in a previously filed case or issue
`preclusive effect. See id.; see also Bechtel, 544 F.2d at 1215; Haas v. Burlington County, 2009
`WL 4250037, at *2 (D.N.J. Nov. 24, 2009). The cases Veeva cites stating otherwise are not
`binding, distinguishable, and arise in different contexts, see, e.g., Gerald Chamales Corp. v. Oki
`Data Ams., Inc., 247 F.R.D. 453, 454 (D.N.J. 2007) (stay request based on pendency and merits
`of a dispositive motion).
`
`
`
`
`−5−
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-15517-CCC-MF Document 61 Filed 08/21/20 Page 6 of 8 PageID: 663
`
`refusal to deal violates the antitrust laws only when “it is irrational but for its anticompetitive
`
`effects”). But regardless of who prevails in IQVIA I, a decision on the issues in that case would
`
`bear on all remaining claims - because all three cases essentially require a resolution of the trade
`
`secret issues in IQVIA I. The domino effect such a resolution would have on Veeva’s
`
`counterclaim in IQVIA I and the analysis employed with respect to anticompetitive behavior
`
`alleged - and positions taken - in IQVIA II and III, is essentially indisputable – again, should
`
`either side prevail.
`
`Veeva contends that because the products at issue in IQVIA I and IQVIA II and III are
`
`different, and because IQVIA’s alleged anticompetitive behavior may be different at different
`
`times, there is no reason to delay the later filed cases. The Court disagrees. It would make no
`
`practical sense to litigate the antitrust allegations in the later filed cases until the parties know
`
`where they stand with respect to the trade secrets claim. One is inextricably intertwined with
`
`the other. The simple fact is that the first case will largely control the second and third cases –
`
`both practically and legally. The allegations and claims in the three cases overlap and have
`
`practical impact on one another, a fact noted by Judge Alsup when he transferred IQVIA III here
`
`in 2019. The similarity of issues presented strongly weighs in favor of a stay.
`
`Second, proceeding with the second case now would require additional time-consuming
`
`discovery and would not be judicially efficient. The parties have been involved in discovery for
`
`multiple years in IQVIA I -- 70 depositions have been taken, millions of documents have been
`
`produced, motions decided, and constant attention has been given by a Special Master. That
`
`discovery period is drawing closer to an end, and motion practice is visible on the horizon.
`
`Proceeding full steam into IQVIA II and III now jeopardizes that progress and presents the
`
`
`
`
`
`−6−
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-15517-CCC-MF Document 61 Filed 08/21/20 Page 7 of 8 PageID: 664
`
`specter of additional discovery disputes and the need for the expenditure of judicial resources
`
`that may drag out the parties’ litigation bundle for years. This frankly should not be what either
`
`side wants – as a delay of the first case could be prejudicial to both sides’ interests. Moreover,
`
`whether IQVIA I completely resolves any issues in II or III may be disputed by the parties, but
`
`there would not appear to be any reasonable dispute that resolution of issues in I would bear on
`
`II and III, and limit or otherwise potential clarify and reduce what discovery would be needed in
`
`those cases. In that sense, even if IQVIA I does not resolve the cases, it would likely help reign
`
`in and focus otherwise potentially unwieldly discovery in matters II and III, making the
`
`discovery period needed in the latter filed cases shorter – leading to a quicker resolution of all
`
`three cases. This approach would likely expedite resolution of all three cases while minimizing
`
`the risk for unnecessary and expensive discovery. In truth, in no scenario would a resolution of
`
`IQVIA II or III precede I, so the Court sees great benefit both to the parties and Court to resolve
`
`the first case before proceeding with cases two and three.
`
`Third, the Court does not discern substantial prejudice from a stay. Veeva claims it will
`
`be prejudiced by the allegedly ongoing anticompetitive behavior in matters II and III, speculating
`
`that IQVIA I is still years from resolution. For one thing, there is no basis to conclude that
`
`IQVIA I is years from a decision, especially with fact discovery appearing to finally wind down
`
`and motions potentially coming soon. But that aside, no injunction was sought in these cases,
`
`and no reason has been shown why monetary damages would be insufficient. Moreover, the
`
`Court is always able to revisit and revise a stay should a lack of progress in IQVIA I give reason
`
`to do so. However, at this time, the benefit to the parties and Court from proceeding first with
`
`IQVIA I outweighs any prejudice that has been shown from a stay of cases II and III.
`
`
`
`
`
`−7−
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-15517-CCC-MF Document 61 Filed 08/21/20 Page 8 of 8 PageID: 665
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`For the reasons set forth above, the Court concludes that a discretionary stay of IQVIA II
`
`and III is warranted. There are overlapping and similar issues among the three cases, a stay
`
`would conserve party and court resources, and there is no substantial prejudice that would result
`
`from a stay. For that reason, IQVIA’s motion to consolidate and stay [ECF No. 33] is
`
`GRANTED. The Court will enter an appropriate Order consolidating the cases, at which time
`
`the matters will be stayed.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/Mark Falk ________________
`MARK FALK
`United States Magistrate Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DATED: August 21, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`−8−
`
`