Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc., et al. v. Connecticut, et al.

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, No. 19-3549 · judgment December 6, 2019

Certiorari denied · June 15, 2020
Pre-decision estimate: 19% cert probability (95% interval 13%–29%)

Before the decision, about 4.7× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a Third Circuit decision below, a petition filed soon after the judgment below, and a circuit split argued in the petition.

Question presented

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) defines “the scope of discovery” in federal civil cases as “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case[.]” A party may object to discovery requests, and inform the requesting party that “materials are being withheld,” insofar as they exceed “the scope of Rule 26(b).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C). For its part, “the court must limit the * * * extent of discovery” if “proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii). Early in discovery in this multi-district antitrust litigation, the district court entered a case management order (CMO) requiring petitioners, dozens of pharmaceutical manufacturers, to produce millions of documents containing any of various broad search terms, but forbidding them to “withhold prior to production any documents based on relevance or responsiveness.” The court made no finding of discovery-related misconduct. A divided Third Circuit panel denied mandamus, stating that district courts have broad discretion to compel document production and that the CMO allowed petitioners to attempt to “claw back” irrelevant documents after they were produced. The question presented is: Whether, contrary to Rule 26(b), this Court’s decisions, and the decisions of five circuits, a district court may compel a party that has not engaged in discoveryrelated misconduct to produce documents that are neither relevant nor responsive.

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Steffen Nathanael Johnson
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

For respondent
Clare E. Kindall
Office of the Attorney General

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Amicus briefs
2 cert-stage

Linked docket
19A906

Proceedings

  1. Jun 15 2020
    Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Twelve Companies, et al. GRANTED.
  2. Jun 15 2020
    Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by The Chamber of Commerce of The United States of America, et al. GRANTED.
  3. Jun 15 2020
    Petition DENIED.
  4. May 26 2020
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/11/2020.
  5. May 22 2020
    Reply of petitioners Actavis Holdco, Inc., et al. filed.
  6. May 11 2020
    Brief of respondent State of Connecticut in opposition filed.
  7. Mar 23 2020
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including May 11, 2020.
  8. Mar 20 2020
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 15, 2020 to May 11, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
  9. Mar 16 2020
    Brief amicus curiae of DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar filed.
  10. Mar 16 2020
    Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Twelve Companies, et al.
  11. Mar 06 2020
    Application (19A906) referred to the Court.
  12. Mar 06 2020
    Application (19A906) denied by the Court. The order heretofore entered by Justice Alito is vacated.
  13. Mar 05 2020
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 15, 2020.
  14. Mar 05 2020
    Brief amicus curiae of Lawyers for Civil Justice filed.
  15. Mar 03 2020
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 16, 2020 to April 15, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
  16. Feb 28 2020
    Reply of applicant Actavis Holdco, Inc., et al. filed.
    ReplyProof of Service
  17. Feb 28 2020
    Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by The Chamber of Commerce of The United States of America, et al.
  18. Feb 28 2020
    UPON CONSIDERATION of the application of counsel for the applicants, the response filed thereto, and the reply, IT IS ORDERED that paragraph 3(b) of the order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, case No. 2:16-md-02724, entered October 24, 2019, is stayed pending further order of Justice Alito or of the Court.
  19. Feb 24 2020
    Response to application from respondent Connecticut, et al. filed.
    Main DocumentProof of Service
  20. Feb 14 2020
    Response to application (19A906) requested by Justice Alito, due Monday, February 24, by 3 p.m. ET.
  21. Feb 13 2020
    Application (19A906) for a stay pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Alito.
    Main Document
  22. Feb 11 2020
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 16, 2020)