In re Dexilant (Dexlansoprazole) Antitrust Litigation

DISCUSSION

22 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not automatically stay discovery upon the filing 23 of a motion to dismiss. And unlike cases brought pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation 24 Reform Act, no statute stays discovery pending resolution of a motion to dismiss in an antitrust 25 lawsuit. But Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) states “[t]he court may, for good cause, issue 26 an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden 27 1 bear the burden of showing good cause for such a protective order. See Blankenship v. Hearst 2 Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975). 3 Exercising its “wide discretion” to govern discovery, see Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 4 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988), the Court concludes Defendants have not shown good cause for a stay of 5 all discovery and orders Defendants to produce some of the limited documents Plaintiffs seek. In 6 particular, by November 13, 2025, Defendants shall produce, to the extent they are in their 7 possession, custody, or control: 8 • Takeda’s settlement agreements with TWi relating to Dexilant; 9 • Paragraph IV…