Case 2:20-cv-00337-JRG Document 47 Filed 02/08/21 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 315
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`SEAGEN INC.,
`
`v.
`
`Civil Action No. 2:20-CV-00337-JRG
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`DAIICHI SANKYO CO., LTD.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ENTRY OF UNOPPOSED SCHEDULE
`TO GOVERN DISCOVERY AND BRIEFING
`PERTAINING TO JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`Plaintiff Seagen Inc. (“Seagen”) files this motion respectfully requesting that the Court
`
`enter the Proposed Schedule to Govern Discovery and Briefing Pertaining to Jurisdiction and
`
`Venue set forth below.
`
`Defendant Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited (“Daiichi Sankyo Japan”) has moved to
`
`dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and lack of personal jurisdiction (Dkt 22) and has
`
`moved to transfer on the basis of inconvenience under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 to the District of Delaware
`
`(Dkt 24). Seagen is opposed to dismissal or transfer, and has requested discovery that it contends
`
`is necessary to resolution of both motions.
`
`On January 13, 2021, Seagen first met and conferred with Daiichi Sankyo Japan regarding
`
`its proposal for venue and jurisdictional discovery. Thereafter, the Parties continued discussions
`
`on the scope and form of discovery, in part, because Seagen seeks to depose the witnesses who
`
`submitted declarations with Daiichi Sankyo Japan’s motion to transfer and motions to dismiss,
`
`three of whom are non-parties. The parties engaged in multiple rounds of correspondence over
`
`
`sf-4422161
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`SEAGEN INC.,
`
`v.
`
`Civil Action No. 2:20-CV-00337-JRG
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`DAIICHI SANKYO CO., LTD.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ENTRY OF UNOPPOSED SCHEDULE
`TO GOVERN DISCOVERY AND BRIEFING
`PERTAINING TO JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`Plaintiff Seagen Inc. (“Seagen”) files this motion respectfully requesting that the Court
`
`enter the Proposed Schedule to Govern Discovery and Briefing Pertaining to Jurisdiction and
`
`Venue set forth below.
`
`Defendant Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited (“Daiichi Sankyo Japan”) has moved to
`
`dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and lack of personal jurisdiction (Dkt 22) and has
`
`moved to transfer on the basis of inconvenience under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 to the District of Delaware
`
`(Dkt 24). Seagen is opposed to dismissal or transfer, and has requested discovery that it contends
`
`is necessary to resolution of both motions.
`
`On January 13, 2021, Seagen first met and conferred with Daiichi Sankyo Japan regarding
`
`its proposal for venue and jurisdictional discovery. Thereafter, the Parties continued discussions
`
`on the scope and form of discovery, in part, because Seagen seeks to depose the witnesses who
`
`submitted declarations with Daiichi Sankyo Japan’s motion to transfer and motions to dismiss,
`
`three of whom are non-parties. The parties engaged in multiple rounds of correspondence over
`
`
`sf-4422161
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00337-JRG Document 47 Filed 02/08/21 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 316
`
`the ensuing week and a half, seeking to reach compromise. On January 22, the Parties further met
`
`and conferred regarding the scope and need for a schedule to conduct this discovery, and
`
`exchanged proposed schedules. Since then, the Parties have worked diligently to finalize the
`
`agreement, exchanging correspondence on January 29 and February 1, and ultimately agreeing to
`
`the schedule set forth below in a February 3 meet and confer. Seagen respectfully requests that
`
`the Court set a schedule to govern all jurisdiction- and venue-related discovery and the briefing on
`
`all related motions as follows:
`
`Event
`Serve remaining venue
`and jurisdiction related
`discovery requests,
`including interrogatories
`and deposition notices
`Parties to meet-and-
`confer on discovery
`requests, including any
`Daiichi Sankyo Japan
`objections, which are to
`be provided in writing
`File any motion to
`compel based on
`unresolved discovery
`requests; the parties will
`meet and confer on an
`expedited briefing
`schedule for any such
`motion
`Completion of venue and
`jurisdiction related
`document production;
`and interrogatory
`responses due
`Deposition(s) on venue
`and jurisdiction related
`issues to occur during
`this time period
`File response briefs to
`Daiichi Sankyo Japan’s
`
`Deadline
`Seagen served its remaining discovery
`on 1/27/2021
`
`By 2/12/2021
`
`By 2/19/2021
`
`Daiichi Sankyo Japan to complete this
`discovery and certify completion by
`February 26, 2021 (or as ordered by
`Court for disputed requests)
`
`Witnesses to be produced for
`deposition by March 16, 2021 (or as
`ordered by Court)
`
`14 days after last deposition
`
`
`
`sf-4422161
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00337-JRG Document 47 Filed 02/08/21 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 317
`
`motion to transfer and
`motion to dismiss
`File reply briefs to
`Daiichi Sankyo Japan’s
`motion to transfer and
`motion to dismiss
`File sur-reply briefs to
`Daiichi Sankyo Japan’s
`motion to transfer and
`motion to dismiss
`
`
`
`7 days after response
`
`7 days after reply
`
`Daiichi Sankyo Japan does not oppose the relief sought herein, but reserves all rights to
`
`seek an amended schedule—including, without limitation, different schedules for the further
`
`briefing on the motion to transfer versus the motion to dismiss—in the event that Seagen’s
`
`requested discovery results in unwarranted delay of resolution of these motions.
`
`
`
`sf-4422161
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00337-JRG Document 47 Filed 02/08/21 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 318
`
`Dated: February 8,
`2021
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Melissa R. Smith
`Michael A. Jacobs
`MJacobs@mofo.com
`Matthew A. Chivvis
`MChivvis@mofo.com
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`425 Market Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Telephone: 415.268.7000
`Facsimile: 415.268.7522
`
`Bryan Wilson
`BWilson@mofo.com
`Pieter S. de Ganon
`PdeGanon@mofo.com
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`755 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, California 94304-1018
`Telephone: 650.813.5600
`Facsimile: 650.494.0792
`
`Melissa R. Smith
`Texas State Bar No. 24001351
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`GILLAM & SMITH, LLP
`303 South Washington Avenue
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`Telephone: 903.934.8450
`Facsimile: 903.934.9257
`Of Counsel:
`T. John Ward, Jr.
`Texas State Bar No. 00794818
`jw@wsfirm.com
`Charles Everingham IV
`Texas State Bar No. 00787447
`ce@wsfirm.com
`Andrea L. Fair
`Texas State Bar No. 24078488
`andrea@wsfirm.com
`WARD, SMITH & HILL, PLLC
`1507 Bill Owens Parkway
`Longview, Texas 75604
`Telephone: 903.757.6400
`Facsimile: 903.757.2323
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Seagen Inc.
`
`
`
`sf-4422161
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00337-JRG Document 47 Filed 02/08/21 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 319
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
`
`
`
`
`
`document has been served, via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a) (3) upon all
`
`counsel of record on February 8, 2021.
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Melissa R. Smith
`Melissa R. Smith
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`I hereby certify that the Parties have met and conferred regarding this Motion on February
`
`3, 2021. This motion is unopposed.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Melissa R. Smith
`Melissa R. Smith
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`sf-4422161
`
`5
`
`
`
`
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
