From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

County of Santa Clara v. Astra USA, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. California
Feb 17, 2009
No. C 05-03740 WHA (N.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2009)

Opinion

No. C 05-03740 WHA.

February 17, 2009


ORDER GRANTING IN PART REQUEST TO MODIFY BRIEFING SCHEDULE


In this action, plaintiffs County of Santa Clara and County of Santa Cruz allege that defendants charged them prices for drugs greater than price ceilings imposed by Section 340B of the Public Health Service Act of 1992 and contractual agreements thereunder. On December 9, 2009, the Ninth Circuit vacated this Court's order that had granted defendants a protective order precluding discovery by plaintiffs of the information underlying defendants' reported average manufacturer price and best price for purposes of calculating the contractual price ceilings. Discovery was subsequently reopened for the limited purpose of allowing plaintiffs to take discovery regarding the information underlying defendant manufacturers' determination of the AMP and the BP.

Under the schedule ordered at the December 17 hearing and memorialized in a written order the same day (Dkt. No. 549), plaintiffs served document requests and up to five interrogatories to defendants directed at the underlying data on or before January 7, 2010. Defendants' responses to those requests — including any objections or motions for protective orders — were due by February 4, 2010. The schedule provided that if defendants responded with objections which were followed by subsequent meet-and-confers, any motions to compel by plaintiffs were due by February 25, 2010.

On February 4, 2010, defendants filed a joint motion for partial judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, for a protective order. Defendants Bayer and Astra USA, Inc., AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, and Zeneca Inc. filed motions for protective orders. Defendant Bristol-Myers Squibb Company filed a motion for a stay or in the alternative for a protective order. All four motions are scheduled for hearing on March 11, 2010.

Plaintiffs now state that they intend to file additional a cross-motion to compel by February 25, 2010, to be noticed on a 35-day calendar for hearing on April 1, 2010. The parties jointly request to continue the hearing on defendants' motions from March 11 until April 1, 2010, so that they may be heard in concert with plaintiffs' cross-motion. The request for a continuance is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiffs shall file their cross-motion to compel by JANUARY 25, 2010. Defendants shall file a joint opposition by MARCH 4, 2010. Plaintiffs' reply brief shall be filed by MARCH 11, 2010. A joint hearing on defendants' February 4 motions and plaintiffs' cross-motion to compel shall be held on MARCH 18, 2010, AT 8:00 A.M.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

County of Santa Clara v. Astra USA, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. California
Feb 17, 2009
No. C 05-03740 WHA (N.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2009)
Case details for

County of Santa Clara v. Astra USA, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA and THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, on behalf of…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. California

Date published: Feb 17, 2009

Citations

No. C 05-03740 WHA (N.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2009)