Magistrate Judge Fallon Denies Motion to Quash for Lack of Standing
June 14, 2018
Publication| Intellectual Property
In Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A. Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceutical Corp., No. 14-1268-RGA-SRF (D. Del. Apr. 12, 2018), Magistrate Judge Fallon denied the defendants’ motion to quash a subpoena noticed by the plaintiff, Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. One of the defendants had earlier noticed the 30(b)(6) deposition of the subpoena recipient, and the defendants argued that Takeda’s subpoena to the same recipient was duplicative of topics on which Takeda had the opportunity to, and did, question the witness at a deposition. Judge Fallon denied the motion to quash for two reasons. First, the Court found that the defendants failed to object to the timeliness of the subpoena. Second, the defendants did not establish standing to challenge the subpoena, since they were unable to show that they had authority to act on behalf of the recipient, which had already reached agreement with Takeda regarding the scope of the deposition. For these reasons, the Court denied the motion to quash.
Key Point: The Court found that the defendants did not show that they had a personal right or privilege that would confer standing to challenge the subpoena on behalf of the recipient.