Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 122-4 Filed 03/04/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 16071
`
`
`
`TEAGAN JAMES GREGORY
`(202) 434-5178
`
`tgregory@wc.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By Email
`
`February 28, 2024
`
`
`
`Max C. Gottlieb
`HISSAM FORMAN DONOVAN RITCHIE PLLC
`700 Virginia Street East, Suite 210
`Charleston, WV 25301
`mgottlieb@hfdrlaw.com
`
`
`
`Re:
`
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Celltrion Inc., No. 23-cv-89-TSK (N.D. W.
`Va.)
`
`Dear Counsel:
`
`I write in response to your February 19, 2024 letter regarding Regeneron’s Objections
`and Responses to Celltrion’s First Set of Requests for Production ahead of our meet and confer
`scheduled for Thursday, February 29, 2024.
`
`While I address each of Celltrion’s criticisms below to the extent they can be
`understood, it bears noting at the outset that Celltrion’s correspondence reveals a troubling
`asymmetric vision of discovery. To be clear, Regeneron has more than satisfied it production
`obligations. Regeneron has produced more than 66,000 documents, totaling more than 800,000
`pages. This stands in stark contrast to the mere 1,046 documents produced by Celltrion, most of
`which represent only Celltrion’s statutorily required production of its BLA. Celltrion’s
`purported concerns regarding Regeneron’s written responses and production ring particularly
`hollow in view of their own discovery practices. We will address further the deficiencies in
`Celltrion’s production in separate correspondence.
`
`Beginning with Celltrion’s request for an explanation regarding the degree to which
`
`Regeneron’s First Set of Responses differed from the Amended First Set of Responses, we are happy
`to provide you with a redline version of the First Set of Responses that indicates the minor
`differences.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 122-4 Filed 03/04/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 16072
`
`
`
`
`February 28, 2024
`Page 2
`
`
`I.
`
`Regeneron cannot unilaterally produce documents containing third-party
`confidential information.
`
`Regarding the first concern raised in your letter, Regeneron disagrees with the notion that
`we have failed to adhere to the Court-imposed scheduling order. 1 Although not included in the
`February 2, 2024 production, we reiterate that Regeneron will produce the Mylan Litigation
`Written Discovery, the Mylan Litigation Trial Demonstratives, the Mylan Litigation Deposition
`Materials, and the Mylan Litigation Expert Reports, as defined in Regeneron’s Responses and
`Objections to Celltrion’s First Set of RFPs, upon confirmation by Mylan that these documents do
`not contain Mylan’s confidential information or as redacted by Mylan to remove Mylan
`confidential information. As you know, Regeneron is bound under a protective order in the
`Mylan litigation and must therefore take steps to protect Mylan’s confidential information.
`Regeneron is not at liberty to unilaterally produce documents containing such information, nor is
`it in a position to make independent determinations about what information Mylan regards as
`confidential, particularly given a history of disagreements between Mylan and Regeneron
`regarding such issues.
`
`Regeneron has communicated with Mylan multiple times over the past several weeks,
`including as recently as yesterday, in an effort to obtain these documents. Specifically,
`Regeneron has identified documents falling within the above categories and has requested that
`Mylan review the identified documents and either provide versions with Mylan’s confidential
`information redacted or confirm they do not contain Mylan confidential information. Counsel
`for Mylan has confirmed it is reviewing the materials requested, and Regeneron has been in
`contact with Mylan about steps to expedite that review. Regeneron’s good faith attempts to
`produce documents in response to Celltrion’s sweeping discovery requests while complying with
`its protective order obligations have been more than reasonable.
`
`II.
`
`Regeneron did not use impermissible boilerplate objections in its Reponses and
`Objections to Celltrion’s First Set of RFPs.
`
`Regeneron disagrees with Celltrion’s assertion that Regeneron’s responses include
`impermissible general (boilerplate) objections. The cases you cite in your letter stand for the
`proposition that “general objections”, i.e. boilerplate objections, are impermissible “because they
`cannot be applied with sufficient specificity to enable courts to evaluate their merits.” Hager v.
`Graham, 267 F.R.D. 486, 498 (N.D.W. Va. 2010) (citing Convertino v. U.S. Dept. of Justice,
`565 F. Supp. 29 10, 13 (D.D.C. 2008). They do not stand for the proposition that all General
`
`
`1 We do not understand Celltrion’s complaint that Regeneron stated that it “will produce” certain documents
`“without any date certain by which it will complete its production.” Regeneron produced the documents that we
`indicated we would produce on February 2, 2024. For the documents that we indicated Regeneron would produce at
`a date later than February 2, 2024, we provided a clear explanation for when those documents would be produced
`and why they would be produced at that time. For example, we indicated in our February 2, 2024 production letter
`that we were forced to exclude certain commercial documents and stated that “Regeneron anticipates it will be able
`to promptly supplement its productions with these additional documents upon entry of a protective order”— which
`we did on Monday, February 26, 2024 the same day that the protective order was entered in this case.
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 122-4 Filed 03/04/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 16073
`
`
`
`
`February 28, 2024
`Page 3
`
`Objections, i.e., generally applicable objections, are blanketly impermissible. The objections
`listed under the “General Objections” heading in Regeneron’s Responses and Objections to
`Celltrion’s First Set of Requests contain sufficient specificity to enable courts to evaluate their
`merits, and are set forth with more detail than the generally-applicable objections listed under the
`“Initial Matters” heading in Celltrion’s own Responses and Objections to Regeneron’s Requests
`for Production, which are just “General Objections” by another name.
`
`Celltrion requested that Regeneron “confirm that Regeneron has not withheld any documents
`solely on the basis of such [General] objections.” However, as explained in detail in Regeneron’s
`Response and Objections to Celltrion’s First Set of Requests, Regeneron has been very specific
`about what documents were withheld pursuant to General Objections ¶¶ 14, 15, 18, 21.
`Regeneron has not withheld documents solely on the basis of any other General Objection.
`
`To the extent Celltrion is concerned about Regeneron’s objections to particular Requests,
`Regeneron disagrees that its specific objections are “boilerplate.” Regeneron included as much
`specificity in each of these objections as it was able given the breadth and facial irrelevance of
`much of the information requested, identifying where possible the particular language of
`Celltrion’s Requests that presented an issue. To the extent Celltrion has questions regarding any
`particular objections, Regeneron is happy to discuss those issues during tomorrow’s meet and
`confer. I again note, however, that Regeneron’s specific objections provide at least as much
`detail as those included in Celltrion’s responses to Regeneron’s Requests.
`
`III. Regeneron offered to meet and confer with Celltrion to determine the
`production and form of privilege logs at an appropriate time.
`
`Regeneron disagrees that its objection to providing a privilege log during the preliminary
`injunction phase of this matter is improper.
`
`As made clear in its Objections and Responses, Regeneron has not simply refused to provide a
`privilege log to Celltrion. Rather, Regeneron expressly stated that “[i]t is willing to meet and confer
`with Celltrion regarding the production and form of any logs at an appropriate time.” The parties
`presently are engaged in expedited preliminary injunction proceedings, making the preparation and
`production of detailed privilege logs impractical at this juncture, and the Court’s scheduling order
`does not contemplate the exchange of such logs at this time. ECF 61 at 3. Indeed, Celltrion itself
`appears to share this understanding given its own failure to produce any privilege logs at the time of
`its Court-ordered January production or in the weeks since.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Sincerely,
`
`/s/Teagan James Gregory _
`Teagan James Gregory
`
`