§Why CasetextPricing

Apotex, Inc. et al v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION to Compel Discovery of Mylan's Quinapril ANDA Products

13 Cited authorities

  1. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders

    437 U.S. 340 (1978)   Cited 4,385 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that that the production of putative class members' names pursuant to Federal Rule 26 was not "within the scope of legitimate discovery."

  2. Lewis v. ACB Business Services, Inc.

    135 F.3d 389 (6th Cir. 1998)   Cited 1,491 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a company whose principal purpose is to extend credit rather than collect debts is not a debt collector under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act

  3. Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp.

    123 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 1997)   Cited 1,183 times
    Holding that a motion to dismiss challenging the legal sufficiency of a claim should be resolved before discovery begins

  4. In re Spalding Sports Worldwide, Inc.

    203 F.3d 800 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 219 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Spalding could assert an attorney-client privilege for an invention disclosure to its corporate legal department for the purpose of obtaining legal advice for the corporation

  5. Micro Motion, Inc. v. Kane Steel Co., Inc.

    894 F.2d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 184 times
    Holding that a showing of relevance requires more than speculation and conjecture

  6. Am. Standard, Inc. v. Pfizer Inc.

    828 F.2d 734 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 146 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the privilege should be applied to "lawyer-to-client communications that reveal, directly or indirectly, the substance of a confidential communication by the client"

  7. Superior Communications v. Earhugger, Inc.

    257 F.R.D. 215 (C.D. Cal. 2009)   Cited 68 times
    Concluding that a party that moved to compel the production of documents in a particular place failed to meet its burden after the party failed to provide the court with a copy of the requests for production or otherwise inform the court of the location the party designated for production

  8. United States v. 416.81 Acres of Land

    514 F.2d 627 (7th Cir. 1975)   Cited 173 times
    Analyzing a Rule 12(f) motion by "accepting as true the factual underpinnings of the [non-movant's] objections" to the motion

  9. Rodríguez-Torres v. Government Development Bank of Puerto Rico

    265 F.R.D. 40 (D.P.R. 2010)   Cited 6 times
    Denying a motion to compel production of ESI because the estimated $35,000.00 cost of production was too high

  10. Bourget v. Government Employees Insurance Company

    313 F. Supp. 367 (D. Conn. 1970)   Cited 19 times
    Holding action by judgment creditor of insured against insurer for bad faith failure to settle claim against insured not a "direct action" within section 1332(c) proviso

  11. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 94,817 times   651 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

  12. Section 314.94 - Content and format of an ANDA

    21 C.F.R. § 314.94   Cited 224 times   37 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that products stemming from Drug Efficacy Study Implementation approvals are subject to today's ANDA regulations

  13. Section 314.2 - Purpose

    21 C.F.R. § 314.2   Cited 7 times

    The purpose of this part is to establish an efficient and thorough drug review process in order to: (a) Facilitate the approval of drugs shown to be safe and effective; and (b) ensure the disapproval of drugs not shown to be safe and effective. These regulations are also intended to establish an effective system for FDA's surveillance of marketed drugs. These regulations shall be construed in light of these objectives. 21 C.F.R. §314.2