Case 2:17-md-02785-DDC-TJJ Document 783 Filed 07/11/18 Page 1 of 16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF KANSAS

In re EPIPEN (EPINEPHRINE INJECTION, ) Civil Action No. 2:17-md-02785-DDC-TJJ

USP) MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES
AND ANTITRUST LITIGATION
This Document Relates To:
ALL ACTIONS.
) (MDL No: 2785)
)
) CLASS PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
) HUMANA INC.’S MOTION FOR AN
) EXTENSION OF TIME, FOR A
) PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND FOR COSTS
) AND FEES
)

1451304_1
 Case 2:17-md-02785-DDC-TJJ Document 783 Filed 07/11/18 Page 2 of 16

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1

II. ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................2

A. Plaintiffs Should Not Be Further Prejudiced by Humana’s Successive

Extension Requests ..................................................................................................2

B. There Is No Basis to Permit Humana to Redact the P&T Materials .......................3

C. Humana Has Not Been Exposed to “Significant Expense Resulting from

Compliance” and Is Not Entitled to Cost-Shifting ..................................................5

1. Humana Is Not a Disinterested Third Party and Has a Significant

Interest in the Outcome of This Litigation ...................................................6

2. Humana Can Easily Bear Costs ...................................................................7

3. This Litigation Is of Great Public Importance .............................................8

4. Humana’s Dilatory Conduct Weighs Against Cost-Shifting .......................9

D. Any Costs Should Be Shared Among All Parties ....................................................9

III. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................10

-i-
1451304_1
 Case 2:17-md-02785-DDC-TJJ Document 783 Filed 07/11/18 Page 3 of 16

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

CASES

AKH Co. v. Univ. Underwriters Ins. Co.,

No. 13-2003-JAR-KGG, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187801
(D. Kan. Nov. 14, 2017) ............................................................................................................4

Amica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Whois Privacy Prot. Serv.,

No. 12-cv-00262-REB-KLM, 2012 WL 1657728
(D. Colo. May 11, 2012) ............................................................................................................4

Behrend v. Comcast Corp.,

248 F.R.D. 84 (D. Mass. 2008) ..............................................................................................7, 9

Callwave Commc’ns. v. Wavemarket, Inc.,

No. C 14-80112 JWS (LB), 2014 WL 2918218
(N.D. Cal. June 26, 2014) ..........................................................................................................8

In re Aggrenox Antitrust Litig.,

No. 3:14-md-02516 (D. Conn.)..................................................................................................6

In Re: EpiPen (Epinephrine Injection, USP) Marketing, Sales Practices and

Antitrust Litigation,
Civil Action No. 17-md-2785-DDC-TJJ .................................................................................10

In re Honeywell Int’l, Inc. Sec. Litig.,

230 F.R.D. 293 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) ...........................................................................................5, 6

In re Intel Corp.,
No. 4:17-mc-80159-KAW, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30757
(N.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2018)...........................................................................................................8

In re Michael Wilson & Partners, Ltd.,

No. 06-cv-02575-MSK-KMT, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72961
(D. Colo. May 24, 2012) ....................................................................................................5, 7, 8

In re Mushroom Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig.,

No. 06-0638, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12319
(E.D. Pa. Jan. 31, 2012) .............................................................................................................6

In re Seroquel Prods. Liab. Litig.,

No. 6:06-md-1769-Orl-22DAB, 2007 WL 4287676
(M.D. Fla. 2007) ........................................................................................................................5

Legal Voice v. Stormans Inc.,

738 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2013) ...............................................................................................5, 9

- ii -
1451304_1
 Case 2:17-md-02785-DDC-TJJ Document 783 Filed 07/11/18 Page 4 of 16

Page

Linder v. Calero-Portocarrero,
251 F.3d 178 (D.C. Cir. 2001) ...................................................................................................5

Spears v. First Am. eAppraiseIT,

No. 5:08-cv-00868-RMW, 2014 WL 6901808
(N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2014) ..........................................................................................................10

Sun Capital Partners, Inc. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co.,

No. 12-CIV-81397, 2016 WL 1658765 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 26, 2016) ............................................6

United States v. McGraw-Hill Cos., Inc.,

302 F.R.D. 532 (C.D. Cal. 2014) .......................................................................................5, 8, 9

W. Convenience Stores, Inc. v. Suncor Energy U.S.A., Inc.,

No. 11-cv-01611-MSK-CBS, 2014 WL 1257762
(D. Colo. Mar. 27, 2014)............................................................................................................9

STATUTES, RULES AND REGULATIONS

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 45(d)(2)(B)(ii) ...................................................................................................................5
Rule 45 ...............................................................................................................................5, 6, 9

- iii -
1451304_1
 Case 2:17-md-02785-DDC-TJJ Document 783 Filed 07/11/18 Page 5 of 16

I. INTRODUCTION

On December 11, 2017, Class Plaintiffs (“Plaintiffs”) served Humana, Inc. (“Humana”) with

a Subpoena seeking the production of documents relevant to this action. 1 Thereafter, on December

22, 2017, Humana requested and the parties reached agreement on an extension of Humana’s

response and production dates “[a]s long as there is a commitment to begin producing responsive

materials by January 31.” ECF No. 282-5. Two months later, Humana still had yet to produce a

single document and ignored requests to identify a new production date. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 282-6,

282-12; see also 282-7. As a result, Plaintiffs were left with no other alternative but to file a motion

to compel. 2 ECF Nos. 282, 292. There was never any real dispute that the materials Humana

refused to produce were (and are) relevant and responsive. See, e.g., ECF No. 292 at 9; ECF No.

687 at 12. And in opposing the motion to compel, Humana argued that it should be allowed “up to

at least May 20, 2018, to investigate and substantially complete its production.” ECF No. 316 at 5.

On June 11, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion and, recognizing that Humana’s requested

May 20, 2018 completion date had already passed, granted Humana until July 2, 2018, to complete

its production. See ECF No. 687 at 12 n.41.

Now, Humana moves this Court for an additional month-long extension in which to collect

and produce responsive documents, 3 and objects – for the first time – that certain responsive

communications and other deliberative materials are confidential and should be redacted. Humana

also argues that Plaintiffs should be ordered to pay Humana’s costs of compliance.

1
On February 9, 2018, Mylan also served Humana with a document subpoena. ECF No. 701-3.
2
Only after Plaintiffs filed their motion to compel did Humana begin to produce documents. On
March 1, 2018, Humana produced a total of 16 documents, and on March 7, 2018, Humana produced
one additional document.
3
In total, including the 31 additional documents produced on July 2, 2018, Humana has produced
only 48 documents totaling 188 pages.

-1-
1451304_1
 Case 2:17-md-02785-DDC-TJJ Document 783 Filed 07/11/18 Page 6 of 16

II. ARGUMENT

A. Plaintiffs Should Not Be Further Prejudiced by Humana’s Successive

Extension Requests

Humana seeks an extension of the Court’s July 2, 2018 production deadline claiming that it is

“entitled to additional time to produce responsive email[s]” because “subsequent to the Court’s

Order, Humana has learned that Class Plaintiffs also demand that Humana search for and produce an

undetermined volume of email.” ECF No. 754 at 6.

First, Humana’s claim that it was unaware that Plaintiffs seek communications is not

accurate. The production of responsive communications was addressed both during several meet

and confers as well as in the motion to compel briefing. 4 Indeed, according to Humana itself, it has

purportedly been “investigating” the existence of responsive “deliberative materials and

communications” for many months now. See, e.g., ECF No. 282-12 at 2 (On February 7, 2018,

following submission of responses and objections, Humana stated it “still did not know what

materials exist” “[c]oncerning deliberative materials and communications relating to the rebate

agreements.”). To be sure, Humana earlier told the Court that it could complete its production by

May 20, 2018, which the Court noted included the production of responsive communications. See,

e.g., ECF No. 687 at 12 n.41.

4
For example, on January 22, 2018, the parties “discussed the production of rebate and formulary
agreements, and deliberative materials and communications concerning those agreements.” See
ECF No. 282-12 at 1; see also id. at 3 (Feb. 7, 2017 Letter: “After having the subpoena for nearly
two months, Humana claims to not know whether it possesses responsive materials concerning
productions related to government and regulatory investigations, formulary agreement and related
communications and materials, and communications and deliberative materials concerning . . .
rebate agreements.”); ECF No. 316 at 8 (Humana recognizing in its opposition brief that Plaintiffs
seek “Humana’s communications and deliberative materials, including the clinical materials from
Humana’s P&T Committee”); ECF No. 687 at 9 (rejecting “Humana’s assertion that Plaintiffs’
request for communications and deliberative materials are improper”). Unless otherwise noted,
citations are omitted and emphasis is added, here and throughout.

-2-
1451304_1
 Case 2:17-md-02785-DDC-TJJ Document 783 Filed 07/11/18 Page 7 of 16

Second, Plaintiffs have sought to reach agreement on all outstanding issues, including

Humana’s request for an additional extension. See, e.g., ECF No. 755-4. Humana, however,

rejected any proposal that was bilateral in nature, insisting that Plaintiffs either abandon the request

for responsive communications or agree to a lengthy extension without a date by which it would

commit to complete its production. See id. at 3, 6. 5 Notwithstanding, Humana demonstrated

unwillingness to adhere to production deadlines, Plaintiffs remain willing to entertain a reasonable

extension. To preserve existing deadlines, Plaintiffs do not oppose an extension of the already

lapsed Court-ordered deadline so long as Plaintiffs are permitted a sufficient time in which to

evaluate the production, resolve any deficiencies with Humana, and, if necessary, seek relief from

the Court. 6

B. There Is No Basis to Permit Humana to Redact the P&T Materials

On June 11, 2018, the Court ordered Humana to produce materials responsive to Request

Nos. 1 and 14, (ECF No. 687 at 9), which requests, among other materials, P&T Committee

documents relating to the “consideration and negotiation of Incentives from, Mylan (for the

Epipen®)” (ECF No. 282-2 at 17 (Req. No. 1)) and concerning Humana’s “decision or consideration

to include, place, or otherwise exclude any EAI Drug Device on any PBM, Medicaid, or other

5
It is already July 11, 2018, and coordinated discovery ends on October 31, 2018. Thus, in just
over 100 days, Plaintiffs must receive and process Humana’s production, review those documents
(along with the tens of thousands of other documents produced by the parties and other third parties),
resolve any deficiencies, and take Humana’s deposition. Time is clearly of the essence.
6
By failing to complete its production by the Court-ordered July 2, 2018 deadline, and waiting
until the deadline to seek an extension, Humana has, for all practical purposes, already granted itself
an extension. Notably, Humana initially asked for a four-month extension, seeking a deadline of
May 20, 2018, to “investigate and substantially complete” its production. ECF No. 316 at 5. Having
done nothing to “investigate and substantially complete” its production since it filed its March 2,
2018 opposition brief, (ECF No. 316), Humana complains that it needs more than two additional
months beyond its May 20, 2018 date in which to complete its production.

-3-
1451304_1
 Case 2:17-md-02785-DDC-TJJ Document 783 Filed 07/11/18 Page 8 of 16

formulary” (id., at 19 (Req. No. 14)). 7 See ECF No. 292 at 6. Despite the settled relevance of these

materials, (see ECF No. 687 at 12), Humana persists in refusing to produce relevant materials,

insisting that it should be permitted to redact the P&T materials this Court ordered be produced by

July 2, 2018, and objecting for the first time that “disclosure would cause unnecessary harm to

Humana and individual P&T Committee members.” ECF No. 754 at 7. 8

First, Humana’s belated objection that P&T Committee materials should be redacted was not

raised in its objections or in opposing the motion to compel. See, e.g., ECF No. 316 at 7-8. As such,

Humana’s objections are waived. Amica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Whois Privacy Prot. Serv., No. 12-cv-

00262-REB-KLM, 2012 WL 1657728, at *3 (D. Colo. May 11, 2012) (“failure to object in writing

to a subpoena duces tecum within the time specified in this rule constitutes a waiver of objections”).

Second, confidentiality is not a valid basis for withholding otherwise discoverable documents

and information. See, e.g., ECF No. 695 at 4 (“Trade secrets and similar confidential information

are not afforded absolute privilege.”). See AKH Co. v. Univ. Underwriters Ins. Co., No. 13-2003-

JAR-KGG, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187801, at *45-*46 (D. Kan. Nov. 14, 2017) (“It is well settled

that confidentiality does not act as a bar to discovery and is not grounds to withhold documents or

information from discovery.”). Since the terms of the Protective Order adequately protect all

7
As explained by Humana, its Pharmaceutical and Therapeutic (“P&T”) Committee is the group
within Humana that would possess responsive materials concerning or memorializing Humana’s
deliberative process and considerations concerning rebates and whether or not (and why) certain EAI
Drugs will be included or excluded from Humana’s formulary. ECF No. 292 at 6. In addition, the
P&T Committee members, as decision makers for Humana concerning EAI device formulary
placement, are each percipient witnesses in this action. The parties are entitled to know who these
persons are and to subpoena trial or deposition testimony if necessary.
8
Significantly, Humana’s confidentiality objections are not only untimely raised but are also
contrary to the company’s representation in its January 17, 2018 written objections and responses
that Humana would be producing such P&T Committee materials and designating them as “Highly
Confidential” under the terms of the Stipulated Protective Order. ECF No. 282-4, ¶17.

-4-
1451304_1
 Case 2:17-md-02785-DDC-TJJ Document 783 Filed 07/11/18 Page 9 of 16

confidential information, (see ECF No. 556 at §§2, 4.1), Humana’s objections to producing the P&T

Committee materials “as they are kept in the ordinary course of business” should be overruled.

C. Humana Has Not Been Exposed to “Significant Expense Resulting

from Compliance” and Is Not Entitled to Cost-Shifting

Under Rule 45, a non-party may be entitled to reimbursement for “significant expense

resulting from compliance” with a subpoena. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(ii). Thus, the court must

first determine what expenses resulted from compliance, and then whether those expenses are

significant. See Legal Voice v. Stormans Inc., 738 F.3d 1178, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2013); Linder v.

Calero-Portocarrero, 251 F.3d 178, 182 (D.C. Cir. 2001). What constitutes a “significant” expense

is dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Some courts have considered

the following factors: (1) whether the non-party has an interest in the outcome of the underlying

litigation; (2) whether the non-party can more readily bear its costs than the requesting party; and (3)

whether the underlying litigation is of public importance. See In re Michael Wilson & Partners,

Ltd., No. 06-cv-02575-MSK-KMT, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72961, at *9 (D. Colo. May 24, 2012).

Despite the required protection from significant expense, “a non-party can be required to bear some

or all of its expenses where the equities of a particular case demand it.” In re Honeywell Int’l, Inc.

Sec. Litig., 230 F.R.D. 293, 303 (S.D.N.Y. 2003); In re Seroquel Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 6:06-md-

1769-Orl-22DAB, 2007 WL 4287676, at *2 (M.D. Fla. 2007). Indeed, while Rule 45 protects

nonparties from significant expense resulting from compliance with a subpoena; it “does not cut a

blank check to nonparties.” United States v. McGraw-Hill Cos., Inc., 302 F.R.D. 532, 536 (C.D.

Cal. 2014). The facts and circumstances of this case do not support shifting Humana’s claimed

costs. 9

9
Humana’s request is, at best, premature. McGraw-Hill, 302 F.R.D. at 537 (deferring
consideration of a request for cost-shifting until “after documents have been produced and a
meaningful record [regarding costs] has been established”).
-5-
1451304_1
 Case 2:17-md-02785-DDC-TJJ Document 783 Filed 07/11/18 Page 10 of 16

1. Humana Is Not a Disinterested Third Party and Has a

Significant Interest in the Outcome of This Litigation

The intention of Rule 45 is to protect disinterested non-parties from incurring significant

expense in complying with a subpoena in a case for which they have no interest. Sun Capital

Partners, Inc. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., No. 12-CIV-81397, 2016 WL 1658765, at *7 (S.D. Fla.

Apr. 26, 2016). As to this first factor, “‘when a party from whom documents are sought is not a

“classic disinterested non-party,” . . . the court can order that the non-party produce the documents at

its own expense.’” Id; see also In re Mushroom Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig., No. 06-0638,

2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12319, at *45-*46 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 31, 2012) (noting that “‘[w]hen a party

from whom documents are sought is not a “classic disinterested non-party,” . . . the court can order

that the non-party produce the documents at its own expense’”); Honeywell, 230 F.R.D. at 303

(denying non-party PWC’s request for reimbursement of gathering, copying, and review costs

because “PWC is not a classic disinterested nonparty”).

Here, while Humana claims it is “a non-party with no stake in this litigation,” (see ECF No.

754 at 10), this is simply not the case. First, Humana provides health care and pharmaceutical

benefits to its medical membership of over 14 million members. Should Plaintiffs prevail in this

litigation, Humana – so long as Humana remains in the class and does not opt-out to pursue its own

claims – will likely be entitled to share in any recovery. And not dissimilar to the litigation being

pursued here, Humana itself also pursues litigation against drugmakers for violations of antitrust and

consumer protection laws. For example, Humana as an individual plaintiff in multidistrict litigation

pending in the District of Connecticut recently reached a confidential settlement with Teva

Pharmaceutical and Boehringer Ingelheim relating to Humana’s claims that the drugmakers blocked

generic alternatives to the stroke-prevention drug Aggrenox from coming to the market. In re

Aggrenox Antitrust Litig., No. 3:14-md-02516 (D. Conn.). As such, while Humana may not be a

-6-
1451304_1
 Case 2:17-md-02785-DDC-TJJ Document 783 Filed 07/11/18 Page 11 of 16

named party in this litigation, it certainly has a significant interest in the outcome of this litigation.

Behrend v. Comcast Corp., 248 F.R.D. 84, 85-87 (D. Mass. 2008).

Second, Humana has a direct business interest in the underlying claims in this litigation. In

fact, Humana has warned its investors of the risk that “[i]f we do not continue to earn and retain

purchase discounts and volume rebates from pharmaceutical manufacturers at current levels, our

gross margins may decline.” Ex. 1 at 30 (“We have contractual relationships with pharmaceutical

manufacturers or wholesalers that provide us with purchase discounts and volume rebates on certain

prescription drugs dispensed through our mail-order and specialty pharmacies.”),

https://humana.gcs-web.com/static-files/c7a3ff1d-4a42-44b1-9284-342d4997366f. 10 And the

magnitude of Humana’s rebates is significant: “The balance of pharmaceutical rebates receivable

was $1.2 billion at December 31, 2017 and $889 million at December 31, 2016.” Id. at 92. Because

Humana is not a classic disinterested non-party and has a significant interest in the outcome of this

litigation, the Court should deny Humana’s request for cost-shifting and order it to produce the

responsive documents at its own expense.

2. Humana Can Easily Bear Costs

In assessing whether costs are “significant” courts also consider whether the non-party can

more readily bear its costs than the requesting party. Michael Wilson, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72961,

at *12. The determination of whether costs are significant is relative, “such that ‘an expense might

be “significant,” for instance, to a small family-run business, while being “insignificant” to a global

10
Compare with, e.g., ECF No. 60, ¶636 (“the success or failure of certain drugs in the
marketplace” is determined “by offering to include or threatening to exclude certain medications
from some or all of their formularies and, in the process, extracting hundreds of millions of dollars in
the form of ‘discounts’ or ‘rebate’ payments from drug manufacturers in exchange”); id., ¶637
(“Negotiations between PBMs and drug manufacturers regarding those discounts, however, take
place in complex, closed-door meetings, during which PBMs sell access to their formularies in
exchange for large rebates or discounts, a substantial portion of which they pocket as pure profit.”).

-7-
1451304_1
 Case 2:17-md-02785-DDC-TJJ Document 783 Filed 07/11/18 Page 12 of 16

financial institution.’” In re Intel Corp., No. 4:17-mc-80159-KAW, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30757,

at *16-*17 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2018). Thus, “courts look to the nonparty’s financial ability to bear

the costs of production.’” Id.; see also Michael Wilson, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72961, at *12 (“As

the party seeking to shift attorney’s fees and costs incurred, it is up to the Respondents to

demonstrate that they cannot more readily bear the expense than MWP.”).

Here, Humana is a large, publicly-traded health insurance company. With revenues

exceeding $53 billion, Humana is ranked 56th on the Fortune 500. 11 It defies credulity to think that

the cost of compliance with Plaintiffs’ Subpoena is “significant” to a company of Humana’s size.

Intel, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30757, at *16-*17. By contrast, Plaintiffs are a collection of individual

consumers and one regional Taft-Hartley welfare trust fund represented by law firms who have taken

on this case on a fully-contingent basis. Id. What would be significant for Plaintiffs here is likely

insignificant to Humana, one of the world’s largest corporations. Humana can and should bear its

own costs.

3. This Litigation Is of Great Public Importance

To determine whether costs are “significant” courts also consider whether the litigation is of

public importance. Callwave Commc’ns. v. Wavemarket, Inc., No. C 14-80112 JWS (LB), 2014 WL

2918218, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 26, 2014). As the Court is aware, this lawsuit has significant public

importance. Indeed, the U.S. Congress called Heather Bresch, Mylan’s CEO, to appear before it and

provided testimony on issues including the pricing of EpiPen and the payment of rebates and other

“allowances.” ECF No. 60, ¶194. McGraw-Hill, 2014 WL 3810328 at *4 n.1 (finding third party

should bear a portion of the costs in a case regarding the role of credit rating manipulation in the

2007 crash because “this is a case of notable public importance, inquiring into who is to blame for a

11
See Fortune, http://fortune.com/fortune500/humana/ (last accessed July 11, 2018).

-8-
1451304_1
 Case 2:17-md-02785-DDC-TJJ Document 783 Filed 07/11/18 Page 13 of 16

financial crisis that wreaked terrible havoc”). This is an additional reason the Court should find

Humana’s claimed costs are not “significant.”

The underlying litigation is also a matter of real concern to those who, like Humana, provide

prescription benefits to their medical members. If Mylan is found in violation of the Sherman Act or

state consumer protection laws, then those who purchased or otherwise paid for EpiPen – including

Humana – have been forced to pay higher prices for EpiPen due to defendants’ unlawful behavior.

See Behrend, 248 F.R.D. at 85-87.

4. Humana’s Dilatory Conduct Weighs Against Cost-Shifting

Humana’s refusals to produce responsive documents until after Plaintiffs were forced to file a

motion to compel, and now again following a Court Order compelling Humana to do so, militates

squarely against any cost-shifting in Humana’s favor. W. Convenience Stores, Inc. v. Suncor Energy

U.S.A., Inc., No. 11-cv-01611-MSK-CBS, 2014 WL 1257762, at *26 (D. Colo. Mar. 27, 2014) (Rule

45 “should not be construed or applied in a way that ignores the subpoena recipient’s own conduct or

confers ‘a right to obfuscation or obstinacy.’”). As this Court recognized, Plaintiffs have taken

reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on Humana. See ECF No. 687 at 12.

Plaintiffs’ reasonableness has been rewarded, however, with Humana’s obstinate refusals to produce

responsive materials. For this additional albeit highly important reason, cost-shifting is not

appropriate here.

D. Any Costs Should Be Shared Among All Parties

In addition to failing to substantiate its claim that any costs are “substantial,” Humana has

also failed to establish that the costs “‘resulted from compliance’” with Plaintiffs’ Subpoena.

McGraw-Hill, 302 F.R.D. 532, 537 (citing Legal Voice, 738 F.3d at 1184). Rather, all of the

documents that have or will be produced are a subset of the materials required to be produced in

response to Mylan’s subpoena as well. See ECF No. 701-3 at 6. Indeed, Mylan’s Request No. 1
-9-
1451304_1
 Case 2:17-md-02785-DDC-TJJ Document 783 Filed 07/11/18 Page 14 of 16

seeks “[a]ll documents responsive to all Requests included in Schedule A to the subpoena directed

to” Humana by Plaintiffs. Id. 12 Mylan’s subpoena then seeks documents responsive to another ten

requests. Id. As such, Humana’s production is the result of subpoenas from both parties and it will

be manifestly “unfair to require plaintiffs to bear these costs alone.” Spears v. First Am.

eAppraiseIT, No. 5:08-cv-00868-RMW, 2014 WL 6901808, at *4-*5 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2014).

While Humana does not attempt to allocate between Mylan’s Request No. 1 and Plaintiffs’

subpoenas (nor could it), to the extent any costs are shifted they should be allocated between Mylan

and Plaintiffs.

III. CONCLUSION

Only a very short extension should be granted to Humana to produce responsive documents

and Humana should not be entitled to redact the important P&T Committee materials. In addition,

Humana has not and will not be exposed to “significant expense resulting from compliance” with the

Court’s order compelling it to produce responsive and relevant documents. All parties should bear

their own costs. Humana’s motion should be denied.

DATED: July 11, 2018 Respectfully submitted,

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN

& DOWD LLP
BRIAN O. O’MARA
ARTHUR L. SHINGLER III
LEA MALANI BAYS

s/ BRIAN O. O’MARA
BRIAN O. O’MARA

12
Mylan’s request reads: “All documents responsive to all Requests included in Schedule A to the
subpoena directed to you, issued on December 8, 2017 by counsel for Consumer Class Cases
Plaintiffs in this case, captioned In Re: EpiPen (Epinephrine Injection, USP) Marketing, Sales
Practices and Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No. 17-md-2785-DDC-TJJ.” Id.

- 10 -
1451304_1
 Case 2:17-md-02785-DDC-TJJ Document 783 Filed 07/11/18 Page 15 of 16

655 West Broadway, Suite 1900

San Diego, CA 92101-8498
Telephone: 619/231-1058
619/231-7423 (fax)
bomara@rgrdlaw.com
ashingler@rgrdlaw.com
lbays@rggrdlaw.com

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN

& DOWD LLP
PAUL J. GELLER
STUART A. DAVIDSON
120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: 561/750-3000
561/750-3364 (fax)

KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.

LYNN LINCOLN SARKO
DEREK W. LOESER
GRETCHEN FREEMAN CAPPIO
GRETCHEN S. OBRIST
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: 206/623-1900
206/623-3384 (fax)

BURNS CHAREST LLP

WARREN T. BURNS
SPENCER COX
900 Jackson Street, Suite 500
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: 469/904-4550
469/444-5002 (fax)

REX A. SHARP, P.A.

REX A. SHARP
RYAN C. HUDSON
5301 West 75th Street
Prairie Village, KS 66208
Telephone: 913/901-0505
913/901-0419 (fax)

Co-Lead Counsel and Liaison Counsel for Class

Plaintiffs

- 11 -
1451304_1
 Case 2:17-md-02785-DDC-TJJ Document 783 Filed 07/11/18 Page 16 of 16

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that on July 11, 2018, I authorized the electronic

filing of the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send

notification of such filing to the e-mail addresses on the attached Electronic Mail Notice List, and I

hereby certify that I caused the mailing of the foregoing via the United States Postal Service to the

non-CM/ECF participants indicated on the attached Manual Notice List.

s/ BRIAN O. O’MARA
BRIAN O. O’MARA

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN

& DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101-8498
Telephone: 619/231-1058
619/231-7423 (fax)

E-mail: bomara@rgrdlaw.com

1451304_1