INNOMED LABS, LLC. v. ALZA CORPORATION

Full title: INNOMED LABS, LLC, Plaintiff, — against — ALZA CORPORATION, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Oct 23, 2002

01 Civ. 8095 (HB) (RLE) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2002)

Opinion

01 Civ. 8095 (HB) (RLE)

October 23, 2002

OPINION AND ORDER

RONALD L. ELLIS, United States Magistrate Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Before this Court is a motion by plaintiff Innomed Labs, LLC ("Innomed") seeking to compel production by non-party Ciba Consumer Pharmaceuticals/Novartis Consumer Health, Inc. ("Ciba/Novartis") of documents regarding Ciba/Novartis' sales of non-24 hour cold remedies. For the following reasons, Innomed's motion to compel is DENIED.

II. BACKGROUND

The facts of this case have been summarized in Innomed Labs. LLC v. Alza Corp., 2002 WL 1835426 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), and need not be discussed at length here. of importance is this Court's decision dated September 6, 2002. See Innomed Labs, LLC v. Alza Corporation, 2002 WL 31015595 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (the "Alza opinion"). Innomed previously brought a motion to compel documents from defendant Alza Corporation ("Alza") relating to its relationship with Ciba/Novartis which the Court denied on grounds of relevance. Id. Innomed subsequently brought this motion to compel non-party Ciba/Novartis to produce documents relating to its sales and distribution of Alza products.

III. DISCUSSION

Although the documents sought in this motion differ in some respects from the documents sought in Innomed's motion to compel production from Alza, the reasoning in the Alza opinion applies to this motion. This Court has previously held that "Ciba/Novartis was in the market at a different time and was not competing with other firms," and thus information on Ciba/Novartis was irrelevant. Innomed, 2002 WL 31015595 at *4 Innomed's entry into the market was not only at a different time, but was in direct competition with Warner-Lambert. Id. at *2. Furthermore, "each of the three factors cited by [J. Douglas Zona] in his paragraph 5 [of his Declaration in Support of Motion to Compel] are subject to different influences during the Ciba/Novartis period as opposed to the relevant time frame for the claims in this case." Id. at *4 Therefore, as in the Alza opinion, Innomed has failed to demonstrate the relevance of the information sought.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the requested documents are not relevant to any claim or defense, and Innomed's request for production is DENIED.