Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

King Pharms., Inc. v. Intelliject, Inc.

United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division

October 20, 2011, Decided; October 20, 2011, Filed

CASE NO. 1:11-mc-0106-JMS-TAB



This miscellaneous case involves a satellite discovery dispute arising from a patent infringement action in Delaware. Plaintiffs served two subpoenas on Medivative Technologies, LLC, a nonparty based in Indianapolis. The parties and Medivative appeared by counsel on September 22, 2011, for a telephonic status conference to address Medivative's motion to quash subpoenas. [Docket No. 1.] Based upon the arguments made, the Court grants in part and denies in part the motion to quash.

The two subpoenas at issue, as originally served, are overbroad and unduly burdensome. For example, the subpoenas lack date ranges and thus presumably are directed at the entire five-year relationship period between Medivative and  [*2] Intelliject, Inc., the Defendant in the underlying action. As Medivative is not a party to the underlying litigation, this Court must carefully consider the breadth of and burdens imposed by the challenged subpoenas. WM High Yield v. O'Hanlon, 460 F. Supp. 2d 891, 895-96 (S.D. Ind. 2006). Moreover, at least some of the information sought by Plaintiffs' subpoenas can be obtained from the Defendant in the underlying patent infringement action.

That being said, Plaintiffs made efforts to narrow the scope of their subpoenas after Medivative raised concerns. Of course, such efforts would have been more useful prior to serving the now-challenged subpoenas, and may have avoided this discovery dispute altogether. Nevertheless, the narrowed subpoenas unquestionably seek relevant documents, and Medivative must respond to the narrowed subpoenas as set forth below.

Page three of Plaintiffs' opposition to the motion to quash sets forth three topics and four categories of documents that Plaintiffs are now seeking by way of the contested subpoenas. [Docket No. 10 at 3.] Using this as a guidepost, the Court finds that the three general topics described fall within the bounds of discoverable information.  [*3] Turning to the four specific categories of documents, the Court specifically finds:

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121947 *

KING PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, vs. INTELLIJECT, INC., et al., Defendants.


subpoenas, emails, nonparty, videos, unquestionably, discoverable, infringement, burdensome, discovery, overbroad, prototype, kickback, patent, unduly