`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
`
`
`ORDER
`Before the Court is Seagen Inc.’s (“Seagen”) Motion to Compel Production of Arbitration
`
`SEAGEN INC.,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`DAIICHI SANKYO CO., LTD.,
`
`
`
`ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS
`LP, and ASTRAZENECA UK LTD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant,
`
`Intervenor-Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-CV-00337-JRG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Expert Reports and Testimony (the “Motion”). (Dkt. No. 237). Having reviewed the Motion and
`
`the subsequent briefing, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that the Motion should
`
`be DENIED.
`
`In its Motion, Seagen argues that expert reports and testimony from Daiichi Sankyo Co.
`
`Ltd.’s (“DSC”) technical and damages expert in the co-pending arbitration between the parties
`
`should be produced here.1 (Dkt. No. 237 at 1). Seagen argues that because it produced reports
`
`and testimony from its technical and damages experts from the co-pending arbitration, DSC should
`
`do likewise. (Id.). However, Seagen discounts an important fact: it is using the same experts in
`
`
`1 Although DSC did not raise it in its response, Seagen’s Motion was untimely. This is an issue that could have (and
`should have) been raised during fact discovery. Seagen admits the issue arose in fact discovery and it “put the issue
`aside for several months.” (Dkt. No. 237 at 1). Seagen’s decision to file the Motion near the end of expert discovery
`resulted in unnecessarily expediting the issue and the Court’s resources. Such could have been avoided if the issue
`was timely raised. Nonetheless, the Court herein addresses the issue raised in Seagen’s Motion.
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00337-JRG Document 244 Filed 12/15/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 8668
`
`this case as in the co-pending arbitration while DSC has chosen to use different experts. (Dkt. No.
`
`240 at 1). This is a critical difference. Further, Seagen has failed to articulate any persuasive
`
`argument for the relevance of the reports and testimony given those experts are not testifying in
`
`this case.2 The Court also has concerns about disrupting the protective order in the co-pending
`
`arbitration; however, the aforementioned reasons are sufficient without more to deny the Motion,
`
`so the Court need not traverse that issue.
`
`Accordingly, Seagen’s Motion is DENIED.
`
`
`2 Seagen argues that the materials it seeks provide necessary “context” and may “rebut positions that defendants take
`in this case.” (Dkt. No. 237 at 2–3). The Court finds these reasons unavailing—especially in light of the fact that
`DSC has retained different experts in this case.
`
`.
`
`____________________________________
`RODNEY GILSTRAP
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`So ORDERED and SIGNED this 15th day of December, 2021.
`
`
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
