Case 1:17-cv-00379-LPS Document 53-1 Filed 11/03/17 Page 1 of 30 PageID #: 1038
`Case 1:17-cv-00379-LPS Document 53-1 Filed 11/03/17 Page 1 of 30 PageID #: 1038
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00379-LPS Document 53-1 Filed 11/03/17 Page 2 of 30 PageID #: 1039
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY and
`PFIZER INC.,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 17-379-LPS
`
`
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICAL INC.’S RESPONSES AND
`OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF VENUE-RELATED
`INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.
`
`Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and D Del. LR 26.1,
`
`
`
`Defendant Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“MPI”) hereby serves its Responses and Objections to
`
`Plaintiffs’ First Set of Venue-Related Interrogatories to Defendant Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
`
`(the “Interrogatories”) served by Plaintiffs Bristol-Myers Squibb Company and Pfizer Inc.
`
`(collectively, “Plaintiffs”). MPI reserves the right to supplement and/or amend its Responses
`
`and Objections as necessary or appropriate, including as provided for under Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 26(e) or in accordance with any Court Order.
`
`Nothing herein is intended, or should be deemed, to waive any argument MPI has made
`
`in its Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue (D.I. 14-16, 25-26), including that discovery related
`
`to MPI’s Motion to Dismiss is improper.
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`
`
`
`MPI incorporates by reference, to the extent applicable, its General and Specific
`
`Objections set forth in response to Plaintiffs’ Notice of Deposition Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`30(b)(6) to Defendant Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. Regarding Venue-Related Discovery and
`
`Plaintiffs’ First Set of Venue-Related Requests for Production of Documents and Things to
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00379-LPS Document 53-1 Filed 11/03/17 Page 3 of 30 PageID #: 1040
`
`Defendant Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., which are served concurrently herewith. In addition, the
`
`following General Objections are incorporated by reference in each of MPI’s specific Responses
`
`to Plaintiffs’ Definitions as if fully set forth herein:
`
`1.
`
`MPI objects to the definitions of “MPI,” “you,” “your,” and “yours” (a) to the
`
`extent that the definitions cause any Request to exceed the permissible scope of discovery under
`
`the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (b) to the extent they include any corporation, business,
`
`entity, or individuals other than MPI or its employees; (c) as overly broad, rendering the
`
`Interrogatories unduly burdensome to the extent they seeks information that is neither relevant to
`
`this lawsuit nor proportional to the needs of the case; and (d) as including “agents,”
`
`“representatives,” and “attorneys” to the extent the definitions cause an Interrogatory to call for
`
`information subject to the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, joint defense
`
`privilege, or any other privilege, protection, or immunity.
`
`2.
`
`The discovery sought is improper, irrelevant, and disproportionate to the needs of
`
`the case pursuant to In re Cray Inc., 871 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Under Cray, venue is
`
`proper here only if: (1) there is “a physical place in the district;” (2) that place is “a regular and
`
`established place of business;” and (3) that “place” is the defendant’s. See id. at 1360-64. The
`
`undisputed facts already establish that there is no physical, geographical location fixed
`
`permanently in Delaware from where MPI conducts its business.
`
`3.
`
`MPI objects to the definitions of “MPI Affiliate” and “MPI Delaware Affiliate” to
`
`the extent those terms define, describe, or include any corporate entity, formal or informal, other
`
`than MPI. Non-party subsidiaries are not relevant to the venue analysis. See, e.g., In re Cray
`
`Inc., 871 F.3d at 1363-64; Papercraft Corp. v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 439 F. Supp. 1060, 1062
`
`(W.D. Pa. 1977) (“[T]his court cannot subject the parent to venue within this district solely
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00379-LPS Document 53-1 Filed 11/03/17 Page 4 of 30 PageID #: 1041
`
`because the parent corporation owns a profitable subsidiary which is doing business here.”); Am.
`
`Standard, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 83-834-WKS, 1984 WL 63632, at *1 (D. Del. Apr. 26, 1984)
`
`(“I cannot, in the absence of some justifying evidence, ignore the separate corporate identities of
`
`these two corporations and attribute the allegedly infringing acts of [the subsidiary] to Pfizer for
`
`venue purposes.”).
`
`4.
`
`MPI objects to the definitions of “Communication,” “Relate to,” “relates to,”
`
`“refers to,” “relating to,” “Describe,” “state,” “Identify,” and “Basis” as vague, overly broad and
`
`unduly burdensome and an attempt to impose burdens on MPI greater than or inconsistent with
`
`those imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules for the United States
`
`District Court for the District of Delaware.
`
`5.
`
`MPI objects to Plaintiffs’ definition that the “use of a verb in any tense shall be
`
`construed as the use of the verb in all other tenses” as vague, overly broad and unduly
`
`burdensome and an attempt to impose burdens on MPI greater than or inconsistent with those
`
`imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules for the United States District
`
`Court for the District of Delaware. For example, and without limitation, this definition provides
`
`an unbounded irrelevant time periods.
`
`6.
`
`These objections are made without waiver of and with preservation of:
`
`a.
`
`all questions as to competency, relevancy, materiality, privilege and
`
`admissibility of any information, documents and things, and the subject
`
`matter thereof, as evidence for any purpose and in any further proceeding
`
`in this action and in any other action;
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00379-LPS Document 53-1 Filed 11/03/17 Page 5 of 30 PageID #: 1042
`
`b.
`
`the right to object to the use of any such information, documents or things,
`
`or the subject matter thereof, on any ground in any further proceeding in
`
`this action and any other action;
`
`c.
`
`the right to object on any ground at any time to a demand or topic for
`
`further information, documents or things to these or any other deposition
`
`topics, requests for production or other discovery proceedings involving or
`
`related to the subject matter of the discovery to which these responses are
`
`provided; and
`
`d.
`
`the right at any time to review, revise, correct, add to, supplement or
`
`clarify any of the responses contained herein or the information,
`
`documents and things provided herewith.
`
`7.
`
`MPI objects to the Interrogatories as seeking premature discovery to the extent the
`
`Court has not fully addressed MPI’s and Plaintiffs’ joint initiation of the Discovery Matters
`
`Procedure with Judge Stark in connection with the Federal Circuit’s precedential opinion, In re
`
`Cray Inc., 871 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2017), and responds only and to the extent required in view
`
`of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and/or the Local Rules for the United States District
`
`Court for the District of Delaware. In responding, MPI does not waive and will not waive its
`
`objections to venue, its arguments that this Court lacks venue, or its motion seeking dismissal for
`
`venue.
`
`8.
`
`MPI objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they are not reasonably calculated
`
`to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or relevant to any claims or defenses of any party
`
`to this litigation. By responding to the Interrogatories, MPI does not concede the relevancy or
`
`materiality of any Interrogatory, and MPI reserves the right to object to any further discovery on
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00379-LPS Document 53-1 Filed 11/03/17 Page 6 of 30 PageID #: 1043
`
`these matters and to the admissibility of the Interrogatories and any answer thereto in any
`
`deposition, filing, or proceeding, including, but not limited to, at trial. MPI further objects to the
`
`Interrogatories to the extent they are overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, and/or
`
`ambiguous.
`
`9.
`
`MPI objects to the Interrogatories to the extent Plaintiffs seek information that is
`
`not in proportion to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the
`
`action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’
`
`resources, the importance of the information in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or
`
`expense of the proposed information outweighs its likely benefit.
`
`10. MPI objects to the Interrogatories to the extent Plaintiffs seek information subject
`
`to the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, joint defense privilege, any other
`
`applicable privilege or doctrine, or which is otherwise privileged, confidential, or not subject to
`
`discovery.
`
`11. MPI objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek to flip the burden of
`
`proving proper venue onto MPI, and purport to require MPI to undertake an exhaustive venue
`
`analysis. See Lupyan v. Corinthian Colleges Inc., 761 F.3d 314, 322 (3d Cir. 2014) (finding that
`
`a party need not be “forced to prove a negative,” because “[t]he law has long recognized that
`
`such an evidentiary feat is next to impossible”).
`
`12. MPI objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek information outside the
`
`protections afforded by the Protective Order entered in this case.
`
`13. MPI objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek to elicit information that
`
`is subject to an obligation of confidentiality to a third party that is not adequately provided for in
`
`the Protective Order entered in this case.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00379-LPS Document 53-1 Filed 11/03/17 Page 7 of 30 PageID #: 1044
`
`14. MPI objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek information, documents,
`
`or things not in the possession, custody, or control of MPI and/or are not limited as to time.
`
`15. MPI objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they request any confidential
`
`information protected by any law or regulation including but not limited to the Health Insurance
`
`Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Public Law 104-191.
`
`16. MPI objects to the Interrogatories as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the
`
`extent they require identification of “any,” “each,” or “all” documents, facts, or persons. MPI
`
`also objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they request identification of persons with the
`
`“most” knowledge as vague, overbroad, and unduly burdensome.
`
`17. MPI objects to the term “MPI Product” to the extent it relates to information
`
`about any product that is not identified in MPI’s Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”)
`
`No. 210128. See Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Eon Labs Mfg., 206 F.R.D. 392, 394 (D. Del. 2002)
`
`(declining to compel discovery of documents and testimony pertaining to products that were not
`
`the subject of the ANDA giving rise to the litigation). MPI objects to the Interrogatories to the
`
`extent they seek information related to any product that is not identified in MPI’s ANDA No.
`
`210128. Id.
`
`18. MPI objects to the Interrogatories as irrelevant, unduly burdensome, not
`
`reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and calculated to harass to
`
`the extent they call for documents and information related to a finding of willful infringement as
`
`the fact that MPI has filed an ANDA and Paragraph IV certification cannot support a finding of
`
`willful infringement as a matter of law. See Glaxo Group, Ltd. v. Apotex, Inc., 376 F.3d 1339,
`
`1350-51 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“We hold that the mere filing of an ANDA cannot constitute an act of
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00379-LPS Document 53-1 Filed 11/03/17 Page 8 of 30 PageID #: 1045
`
`willful infringement compensable by attorney’s fees under the Drug Price Competition and
`
`Patent Restoration Act of 1984, also known as the Hatch-Waxman Act.”).
`
`19. MPI objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they depend for their meaning on
`
`terms yet to be construed by the Court. See Lexion Med., LLC v. Northgate Techs., Inc., 641
`
`F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Claim construction is a question of law . . . .”); Tulip
`
`Computers Int’l, 210 F.R.D. at 108 (“[D]etermining whether a product or process infringes or
`
`whether infringement has occurred involves the requirement of claim construction, which is a
`
`legal determination within the province of the court.”).
`
`20. MPI objects to the Interrogatories as premature because MPI and Plaintiffs have
`
`jointly initiated a Discovery Matters Procedures before Judge Stark in the underlying patent
`
`litigation that is relevant to this request.
`
`21. MPI objects to any Interrogatory that seeks information obtainable from some
`
`other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, less expensive, or in the public domain.
`
`MPI objects that related documents may be derived or ascertained from the following sources, to
`
`which Plaintiffs have the same or better access than MPI: (a) persons who are not parties to this
`
`action; and (b) documents and things in the possession, custody, and control of Plaintiffs.
`
`Information that is equally accessible to Plaintiffs as it is to MPI are beyond the proper scope of
`
`discovery.
`
`22.
`
`These objections apply to all responses below. Insofar as specific objections are
`
`repeated in a particular response, they are made because they are believed to be particularly
`
`applicable. No waiver of other general objections is intended by the presence of specific
`
`objections.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00379-LPS Document 53-1 Filed 11/03/17 Page 9 of 30 PageID #: 1046
`
`RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
`
`
`
`Subject to and without waiving these objections, MPI further objects and responds to the
`
`Interrogatories below:
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 1
`
`Set forth the entire basis for Your contention that venue is improper as to MPI in the
`above-captioned civil action and specifically identify all documents, testimony, and other
`evidence on which MPI will seek to rely to demonstrate that venue is improper.
`
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1
`
`MPI hereby incorporates its General Objections as set forth above. MPI further objects
`
`to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it purports to be one interrogatory when it encompasses
`
`numerous interrogatories and is an attempt to circumvent the limit placed on the total number of
`
`interrogatories permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`33(a)(1).
`
` The discovery sought by
`
`this Interrogatory
`
`is
`
`improper,
`
`irrelevant, and
`
`disproportionate to the needs of the case pursuant to In re Cray Inc., 871 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2017). Under Cray, venue is proper here only if: (1) there is “a physical place in the district;” (2)
`
`that place is “a regular and established place of business;” and (3) that “place” is the defendant’s.
`
`See id. at 1360-64. The undisputed facts already establish that there is no physical, geographical
`
`location fixed permanently in Delaware from where MPI conducts its business. MPI further
`
`objects to this Interrogatory as seeking premature discovery to the extent the Court has not
`
`addressed MPI’s and Plaintiffs’ joint initiation of the Discovery Matters Procedure with Judge
`
`Stark in connection with the Federal Circuit’s precedential opinion, In re Cray Inc., 871 F.3d
`
`1355 (Fed. Cir. 2017). MPI further objects to this Interrogatory as seeking information protected
`
`by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege,
`
`the common interest privilege, and/or any other applicable doctrine of privilege or immunity.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00379-LPS Document 53-1 Filed 11/03/17 Page 10 of 30 PageID #: 1047
`
`MPI objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it is unbounded with respect to any relevant time
`
`period. MPI objects to the term “Your” to the extent it includes any corporation, business, entity,
`
`or individuals other than MPI or its employees. MPI further objects to this Interrogatory as
`
`overly broad, unduly burdensome, not relevant to any party’s claim or defense, not proportional
`
`to the needs of the case, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence
`
`admissible in this case to the extent that the Interrogatory seeks (i) the “entire basis” for MPI’s
`
`contentions regarding improper venue; (ii) an identification of “all documents, testimony, and
`
`other evidence,” (iii) information unrelated to the product at issue in this litigation; and (iv)
`
`information relating to entities that are not parties to this litigation. For example, and without
`
`limitation, this Interrogatory requires MPI to offer contentions regarding venue that Plaintiffs
`
`may not assert. MPI further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information that is not
`
`in MPI’s possession, custody or control. Additionally, MPI objects to this Interrogatory on the
`
`basis that it is part of a “fishing expedition” undertaken by Plaintiffs “based only upon bare
`
`allegations under the guise of jurisdictional discovery.” Book v. Mendoza, No. 3:07-CV-1468
`
`(CSH), 2012 WL 201732, at *3 (D. Conn. Jan. 23, 2012) (citing Bacarella Transp. Servs., Inc. v.
`
`J.M. Logistics, LLC, 2011 WL 4549400, at *5 (D. Conn. Sept. 29, 2011); Belden Techs., Inc. v.
`
`LS Corp., 626 F.Supp.2d 448, 459 (D. Del. 2009)).
`
`
`
`MPI reserves the right to revise, supplement and modify its responses and objections to
`
`this Interrogatory as it deems necessary and as allowed pursuant to Rule 26(e) of the Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure, Delaware Default Discovery Rules and Delaware Local Rules,
`
`including supplementing as appropriate after the Court resolves the pending discovery dispute
`
`between the parties.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00379-LPS Document 53-1 Filed 11/03/17 Page 11 of 30 PageID #: 1048
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 2
`
`Identify and describe MPI’s and each MPI Affiliate’s physical presence in Delaware,
`including, but not limited to, interests in, possession, or control over real property in
`Delaware (e.g., ownership, leases, short-term occupancy, or any other form of interest in
`real property), employees working in Delaware, inventory located in Delaware, and
`procurement of services performed in Delaware, including, but not limited to, secretarial
`services, professional services, advertising, or marketing.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2
`
`MPI hereby incorporates its General Objections as set forth above. MPI further objects
`
`to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it purports to be one interrogatory when it encompasses
`
`numerous interrogatories and is an attempt to circumvent the limit placed on the total number of
`
`interrogatories permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`33(a)(1).
`
` The discovery sought by
`
`this Interrogatory
`
`is
`
`improper,
`
`irrelevant, and
`
`disproportionate to the needs of the case pursuant to In re Cray Inc., 871 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2017). Under Cray, venue is proper here only if: (1) there is “a physical place in the district;” (2)
`
`that place is “a regular and established place of business;” and (3) that “place” is the defendant’s.
`
`See id. at 1360-64. The undisputed facts already establish that there is no physical, geographical
`
`location fixed permanently in Delaware from where MPI conducts its business. MPI further
`
`objects to this Interrogatory as seeking premature discovery to the extent the Court has not
`
`addressed MPI’s and Plaintiffs’ joint initiation of the Discovery Matters Procedure with Judge
`
`Stark in connection with the Federal Circuit’s precedential opinion, In re Cray Inc., 871 F.3d
`
`1355 (Fed. Cir. 2017). MPI further objects to this Interrogatory as seeking information protected
`
`by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege,
`
`the common interest privilege, and/or any other applicable doctrine of privilege or immunity.
`
`MPI objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it is unbounded with respect to any relevant time
`
`period. MPI objects to the term “MPI Affiliate” to the extent it includes any corporation,
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00379-LPS Document 53-1 Filed 11/03/17 Page 12 of 30 PageID #: 1049
`
`business, entity, or individuals other than MPI or its employees. MPI further objects to this
`
`Interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, not relevant to any party’s claim or defense,
`
`not proportional to the needs of the case, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
`
`of evidence admissible in this case to the extent that the Interrogatory seeks (i) identification and
`
`description of “MPI’s and each MPI Affiliate’s physical presence in Delaware;” (ii) information
`
`unrelated to the product at issue in this litigation; and (iii) information relating to entities that are
`
`not parties to this litigation. For example, and without limitation, this Interrogatory requires MPI
`
`to “[i]dentify and describe MPI’s and each MPI Affiliate’s physical presence in Delaware,” but
`
`Plaintiffs may not assert any such underlying facts, even if they exist. MPI further objects to this
`
`Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is not in MPI’s possession, custody or
`
`control. Additionally, MPI objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that it is part of a “fishing
`
`expedition” undertaken by Plaintiffs “based only upon bare allegations under the guise of
`
`jurisdictional discovery.” Book v. Mendoza, No. 3:07-CV-1468 (CSH), 2012 WL 201732, at *3
`
`(D. Conn. Jan. 23, 2012) (citing Bacarella Transp. Servs., Inc. v. J.M. Logistics, LLC, 2011 WL
`
`4549400, at *5 (D. Conn. Sept. 29, 2011); Belden Techs., Inc. v. LS Corp., 626 F.Supp.2d 448,
`
`459 (D. Del. 2009)).
`
`MPI reserves the right to revise, supplement and modify its responses and objections to
`
`this Interrogatory as it deems necessary and as allowed pursuant to Rule 26(e) of the Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure, Delaware Default Discovery Rules and Delaware Local Rules,
`
`including supplementing as appropriate after the Court resolves the pending discovery dispute
`
`between the parties.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 3
`
`Identify and describe all contracts and communications between MPI and any MPI
`Affiliate related to any MPI Product, property, inventory, employees, or any transfer of
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00379-LPS Document 53-1 Filed 11/03/17 Page 13 of 30 PageID #: 1050
`
`funds from one entity to another whether or not in exchange for goods or services or
`pursuant to contractual rights or obligations.
`
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3
`
`MPI hereby incorporates its General Objections as set forth above. MPI further objects to
`
`this Interrogatory on the grounds that it purports to be one interrogatory when it encompasses
`
`numerous interrogatories and is an attempt to circumvent the limit placed on the total number of
`
`interrogatories permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`33(a)(1).
`
` The discovery sought by
`
`this Interrogatory
`
`is
`
`improper,
`
`irrelevant, and
`
`disproportionate to the needs of the case pursuant to In re Cray Inc., 871 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2017). Under Cray, venue is proper here only if: (1) there is “a physical place in the district;” (2)
`
`that place is “a regular and established place of business;” and (3) that “place” is the defendant’s.
`
`See id. at 1360-64. The undisputed facts already establish that there is no physical, geographical
`
`location fixed permanently in Delaware from where MPI conducts its business. MPI further
`
`objects to this Interrogatory as seeking premature discovery to the extent the Court has not
`
`addressed MPI’s and Plaintiffs’ joint initiation of the Discovery Matters Procedure with Judge
`
`Stark in connection with the Federal Circuit’s precedential opinion, In re Cray Inc., 871 F.3d
`
`1355 (Fed. Cir. 2017). MPI further objects to this Interrogatory as seeking information protected
`
`by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege,
`
`the common interest privilege, and/or any other applicable doctrine of privilege or immunity.
`
`MPI objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it is unbounded with respect to any relevant time
`
`period. MPI objects to the term “MPI Affiliate” to the extent it includes any corporation,
`
`business, entity, or individuals other than MPI or its employees. MPI objects to the term “MPI
`
`Product” to the extent it includes any product other than that described in MPI’s ANDA No.
`
`210128. MPI further objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, not
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00379-LPS Document 53-1 Filed 11/03/17 Page 14 of 30 PageID #: 1051
`
`relevant to any party’s claim or defense, not proportional to the needs of the case, and not
`
`reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible in this case to the extent
`
`that
`
`the
`
`Interrogatory seeks (i) identification and description of “all contracts and
`
`communications between MPI and any MPI Affiliate related to any MPI Product, property,
`
`inventory, employees, or any transfer of funds from one entity to another;” (ii) information
`
`unrelated to the product at issue in this litigation; and (iii) information relating to entities that are
`
`not parties to this litigation. For example, and without limitation, this Interrogatory requires MPI
`
`to “[i]dentify and describe all contracts and communications between MPI and any MPI Affiliate
`
`related to any MPI Product, property, inventory, employees, or any transfer of funds from one
`
`entity to another,” but Plaintiffs may not assert any such underlying facts, even if they exist.
`
`MPI further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information that is not in MPI’s
`
`possession, custody or control. Additionally, MPI objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that it
`
`is part of a “fishing expedition” undertaken by Plaintiffs “based only upon bare allegations under
`
`the guise of jurisdictional discovery.” Book v. Mendoza, No. 3:07-CV-1468 (CSH), 2012 WL
`
`201732, at *3 (D. Conn. Jan. 23, 2012) (citing Bacarella Transp. Servs., Inc. v. J.M. Logistics,
`
`LLC, 2011 WL 4549400, at *5 (D. Conn. Sept. 29, 2011); Belden Techs., Inc. v. LS Corp., 626
`
`F.Supp.2d 448, 459 (D. Del. 2009)).
`
`MPI reserves the right to revise, supplement and modify its responses and objections to
`
`this Interrogatory as it deems necessary and as allowed pursuant to Rule 26(e) of the Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure, Delaware Default Discovery Rules and Delaware Local Rules,
`
`including supplementing as appropriate after the Court resolves the pending discovery dispute
`
`between the parties.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00379-LPS Document 53-1 Filed 11/03/17 Page 15 of 30 PageID #: 1052
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 4
`
`Identify and describe all contracts and communications between any MPI Delaware
`Affiliate and any other MPI Affiliate related to any MPI Product, property, inventory,
`employees, or any transfer of funds from one entity to another whether or not in exchange
`for goods or services or pursuant to contractual rights or obligations.
`
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4
`
`MPI hereby incorporates its General Objections as set forth above. MPI further objects
`
`to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it purports to be one interrogatory when it encompasses
`
`numerous interrogatories and is an attempt to circumvent the limit placed on the total number of
`
`interrogatories permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`33(a)(1).
`
` The discovery sought by
`
`this Interrogatory
`
`is
`
`improper,
`
`irrelevant, and
`
`disproportionate to the needs of the case pursuant to In re Cray Inc., 871 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2017). Under Cray, venue is proper here only if: (1) there is “a physical place in the district;” (2)
`
`that place is “a regular and established place of business;” and (3) that “place” is the defendant’s.
`
`See id. at 1360-64. The undisputed facts already establish that there is no physical, geographical
`
`location fixed permanently in Delaware from where MPI conducts its business. MPI further
`
`objects to this Interrogatory as seeking premature discovery to the extent the Court has not
`
`addressed MPI’s and Plaintiffs’ joint initiation of the Discovery Matters Procedure with Judge
`
`Stark in connection with the Federal Circuit’s precedential opinion, In re Cray Inc., 871 F.3d
`
`1355 (Fed. Cir. 2017). MPI further objects to this Interrogatory as seeking information protected
`
`by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege,
`
`the common interest privilege, and/or any other applicable doctrine of privilege or immunity.
`
`MPI objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it is unbounded with respect to any relevant time
`
`period. MPI objects to the terms “MPI Delaware Affiliate” and “MPI Affiliate” to the extent
`
`they include any corporation, business, entity, or individuals other than MPI or its employees.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00379-LPS Document 53-1 Filed 11/03/17 Page 16 of 30 PageID #: 1053
`
`MPI objects to the term “MPI Product” to the extent it includes any product other than that
`
`described in MPI’s ANDA No. 210128. MPI further objects to this Interrogatory as overly
`
`broad, unduly burdensome, not relevant to any party’s claim or defense, not proportional to the
`
`needs of the case, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible
`
`in this case to the extent that the Interrogatory seeks (i) identification and description of “all
`
`contracts and communications between any MPI Delaware Affiliate and any other MPI Affiliate
`
`related to any MPI Product;” (ii) information unrelated to the product at issue in this litigation;
`
`and (iii) information relating to entities that are not parties to this litigation. For example, and
`
`without limitation, this Interrogatory requires MPI to “[i]dentify and describe all contracts and
`
`communications between any MPI Delaware Affiliate and any other MPI Affiliate related to any
`
`MPI Product, property, inventory, employees, or any transfer of funds from one entity to
`
`another,” but Plaintiffs may not assert any such underlying facts, even if they exist. MPI further
`
`objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information that is not in MPI’s possession, custody
`
`or control. Additionally, MPI objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that it is part of a “fishing
`
`expedition” undertaken by Plaintiffs “based only upon bare allegations under the guise of
`
`jurisdictional discovery.” Book v. Mendoza, No. 3:07-CV-1468 (CSH), 2012 WL 201732, at *3
`
`(D. Conn. Jan. 23, 2012) (citing Bacarella Transp. Servs., Inc. v. J.M. Logistics, LLC, 2011 WL
`
`4549400, at *5 (D. Conn. Sept. 29, 2011); Belden Techs., Inc. v. LS Corp., 626 F.Supp.2d 448,
`
`459 (D. Del. 2009)).
`
`MPI reserves the right to revise, supplement and modify its responses and objections to
`
`this Interrogatory as it deems necessary and as allowed pursuant to Rule 26(e) of the Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure, Delaware Default Discovery Rules and Delaware Local Rules.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00379-LPS Document 53-1 Filed 11/03/17 Page 17 of 30 PageID #: 1054
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 5
`
`Identify and describe all contracts, leases, agreements, or communications by MPI or any
`party, including any MPI Affiliate, acting on behalf of or for the benefit of MPI, related
`to the procurement, maintenance, or upkeep of any physical space in Delaware,
`including, but not limited to, commercial space, retail space, office space, event space
`(e.g., banquet rooms or hotel trial war rooms), visitor office space (e.g., in law firms,
`hospitals, or universities), and lodging (e.g., short-term rentals, hotels, or apartments),
`and the reasons for the transaction.
`
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5
`
`MPI hereby incorporates its General Objections as set forth above. MPI further objects
`
`to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it purports to be one interrogatory when it encompasses
`
`numerous interrogatories and is an attempt to circumvent the limit placed on the total number of
`
`interrogatories permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`33(a)(1).
`
` The discovery sought by
`
`this Interrogatory
`
`is
`
`improper,
`
`irrelevant, and
`
`disproportionate to the needs of the case pursuant to In re Cray Inc.,