Case 2:20-cv-00337-JRG Document 213 Filed 11/08/21 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 8389
`
`SEAGEN INC.,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 2:20-cv-00337-JRG
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`DAIICHI SANKYO CO., LTD.,
`
`
`Defendant, and
`
`
`ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS
`LP and ASTRAZENECA UK LTD.,
`
`
`Intervenor-Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTION TO COMPEL SEAGEN TO PRODUCE DR. PETER SENTER’S
`ARBITRATION TESTIMONY AND RELATED MATERIALS
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00337-JRG Document 213 Filed 11/08/21 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 8390
`
`I.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Prior to and throughout this litigation, Seagen and Daiichi Sankyo Japan have been
`
`engaged in a separate-track arbitration proceeding related to the accused product, Enhertu®. That
`
`arbitration deals with certain contractual rights Seagen claims to have with respect to Enhertu®.
`
`During the arbitration proceedings, Dr. Peter Senter, one of the named inventors of the ’039 Patent
`
`at issue in this case, provided written and oral testimony. AstraZeneca has no access to Dr. Senter’s
`
`testimony from the arbitration.
`
`Dr. Senter is now scheduled to provide deposition testimony in this case on November 17
`
`and 18. On November 1, AstraZeneca contacted Seagen and requested that, in light of Dr. Senter’s
`
`upcoming deposition, Seagen immediately produce Dr. Senter’s arbitration testimony, along with
`
`any associated exhibits, appendices, or demonstratives. Seagen refused, but not because the
`
`testimony and materials were privileged, irrelevant, or overly burdensome to produce—or even
`
`because it objects to producing materials from the arbitration as a general matter. Instead, Seagen
`
`opposed the production of Dr. Senter’s testimony on the basis of an ongoing dispute with Daiichi
`
`Sankyo Japan regarding the extent to which materials from the arbitration should be produced in
`
`this litigation. See Ex. A. Specifically, Daiichi Sankyo Japan has proposed that—for any witness
`
`providing testimony in this present litigation—the prior arbitration testimony from those witnesses
`
`be produced. Seagen, in contrast, seeks a broader production—all testimony and exhibits used in
`
`the arbitration.
`
`That broader dispute over the ultimate scope of production of arbitration materials cannot
`
`and should not be used as a mechanism to deny AstraZeneca access to relevant and material
`
`information that it needs to have a full and fair opportunity to depose Dr. Senter here. Importantly,
`
`under either Seagen or Daiichi Sankyo Japan’s proposal, Dr. Senter’s arbitration testimony will
`
`ultimately be produced. There is no reason to delay—particularly given that Dr. Senter’s
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00337-JRG Document 213 Filed 11/08/21 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 8391
`
`deposition is a mere nine days away. Seagen does not claim that Dr. Senter’s arbitration testimony
`
`and related materials are irrelevant to the issues in this case and there is no reason AstraZeneca
`
`should not have access to such prior testimony from one of the named inventors on the ’039 Patent.
`
`That testimony and related materials therefore should be produced in advance of Dr. Senter’s
`
`November 17-18 deposition with sufficient time to review the testimony and prepare deposition
`
`questions.
`
`II.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons set forth above, AstraZeneca respectfully requests that the Court grant the
`
`Motion and grant the relief set forth above.
`
`Dated: November 8, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ David I. Berl
`(with permission by Jennifer P. Ainsworth)
`David I. Berl
`dberl@wc.com
`Thomas S. Fletcher
`tfletcher@wc.com
`Jessica L. Pahl
`jpahl@wc.com
`Kathryn S. Kayali
`kkayali@wc.com
`Kevin Hoagland-Hanson
`khoagland-hanson@wc.com
`Andrew L. Hoffman
`ahoffman@wc.com
`Williams & Connolly LLP
`725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`Phone: (202) 434-5000
`Facsimile: (202) 434-5029
`
`Jennifer Parker Ainsworth
`Texas State Bar No. 00784720
`jainsworth@wilsonlawfirm.com
`Wilson, Robertson & Cornelius, P.C.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00337-JRG Document 213 Filed 11/08/21 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 8392
`
`909 ESE Loop 323, Suite 400
`Tyler, Texas 75701
`Phone: (903) 509-5000
`Facsimile: (903) 509-5092
`
`Attorneys for AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals
`LP and AstraZeneca UK Ltd.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`Pursuant to L.R. CV-7(i), the undersigned certifies that on November 8, 2021, counsel for
`
`AstraZeneca, with David Berl as lead counsel and Jennifer Ainsworth as local counsel, met and
`
`conferred via telephone with counsel for Seagen, with Michael Jacobs as lead counsel and Melissa
`
`Smith as local counsel. The parties were unable to reach agreement and have reached an impasse,
`
`leaving an open issue for the Court to resolve. Seagen opposes this motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ David I. Berl (lead counsel)
`
`/s/ Jennifer P. Ainsworth (local counsel)
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have
`
`consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s
`
`CM/ECF system per L.R. CV-5(a)(3) on November 8, 2021.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jennifer P. Ainsworth
`Jennifer P. Ainsworth
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`