IN RE: DISPOSABLE CONTACT LENS ANTITRUST LITIGATION. This Document Relates to: all Actions Case No. 3:15-md-2626-J-20JRK United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division Signed July 25, 2016 Klindt, James R., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER *1 This cause is before the Court on Class Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents from Defendants (Doc. No. 248; “Motion”) and supporting declaration (Doc. No. 249), both filed June 30, 2016. On July 8, 2016, Class Plaintiffs filed a Notice Regarding Resolution of Dispute in Class Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 252; “Notice”), in which they advise the Court that one of the three issues raised in the Motion has been resolved—that is, whether Defendant Bausch & Lomb, Inc. (“B&L”) should be required to produce the remainder of certain documents it produced in a government investigation. Notice at 1. Accordingly, the portion of the Motion that seeks to compel B&L to produce such documents is DENIED as moot. The two remaining issues for the Court’s consideration are: “(1) the time period for which various categories of documents should be produced; [and] (2) whether certain of Defendants' pricing documents, in addition to those limited to Uniform Pricing Policies (‘UPP’), should be produced[.]” Motion at 1-2; see Notice at 1. Each Defendant responded in opposition to the Motion on July 14, 2016. See B&L’s Opposition to Class Plaintiffs' Motion (Doc. No. 253; “B&L’s Response”) and supporting declaration (Doc. No. 254); Defendant ABB Optical Group’s (“ABB(’s)”) Opposition to Class Plaintiffs' Motion (Doc. No. 255; “ABB’s Response”); Alcon Laboratories, Inc.’s (“Alcon(’s)”) Opposition to Class Plaintiffs' Motion (Doc. No. 256; “Alcon’s Response”) and supporting declaration (Doc. No. 257); Defendant CooperVision, Inc.’s (“CVI(’s)”) Response to Class Plaintiffs' Motion (Doc. No. 258; “CVI’s Response”) and supporting declarations (Doc. Nos. 260, 261); Johnson & Johnson Vision Care Inc.’s (“J&J(’s)”) Opposition to Class Plaintiffs' Motion (Doc. No. 259; “J&J’s Response”) and supporting declaration (Doc. No. 262). A. First Issue As to the first issue, Class Plaintiffs propose that Defendants produce “all documents responsive to [their requests for production], including both transactional data and additional document discovery dating back to January 1, 2010.” Motion at 9. According to Class Plaintiffs: Transactional data dating back to 2010 is necessary because Class Plaintiffs' experts need to analyze how introductory products were priced and how prices for mature products trended. Because new products were not introduced every year, and because a two-year sample is not enough information to determine pricing trends, older transactional data is necessary. Additional document discovery provides important context and tells a story that transactional data cannot. It reveals the motivations and impetus behind strategic moves made by the Defendants. Id. at 12. Defendants object, generally because the UPPs were not implemented until 2013 or 2014 (with different implementation dates for each Defendant) and because the burden to Defendants of having to produce document discovery pre-dating the implementation of the UPPs by three to four years outweighs any relevance that discovery may have. See B&L’s Response at 5-10; ABB’s Response at 1-2; Alcon’s Response at 4-7; CVI’s Response at 6-8; J&J’s Response at 3-12. Some Defendants, however, have agreed to produce transactional data dating back to 2010 (or as far back as their systems will allow, if not as far as 2010), while objecting to the production of other document discovery dating that far back because of the burden and/or based upon relevance objections. See B&L’s Response at 5-6; Alcon’s Response at 4; CVI’s Response at 4 (representing it offered this compromise to Class Plaintiffs); J&J’s Response at 5-6 (representing it produced substantial transactional data back to 2010 and there is no ripe dispute as to their production). These Defendants instead propose other time frames that are less burdensome. See B&L’s Response at 5-6 (suggesting a cut-off of January 1, 2013); Alcon’s Response at 4 (suggesting a cut-off of January 1, 2013); CVI’s Response at 4 (suggesting a cut-off of January 1, 2013 and representing they already produced documents and transactional data dated 2013 to mid-2015); J&J’s Response at 8 (agreeing “to produce documents dating back to 2013”). *2 Upon review of the parties' papers, the new dictates of Rule 26, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule(s)”), and the cases interpreting Rule 26, the undersigned finds as follows with respect to the first issue. The Motion is GRANTED to the extent that all Defendants must produce transactional data dating back to January 1, 2010 if they have not already done so, and each Manufacturer Defendant must produce non-transactional documents that pre-date the first implementation of that Defendant’s UPP by eighteen months.[1] In the case of Defendant ABB, this production must include non-transactional documents predating by eighteen months the first Manufacturer Defendant’s implementation of a UPP. Otherwise, the Motion, as it relates to the first issue, is DENIED because any benefit the older non-transactional documents may have is outweighed by the undue burden of searching for and collecting them (as more fully articulated in Defendants' Responses). B. Second Issue Regarding the second issue, Class Plaintiffs request that Defendants be ordered to produce “various documents related to the sales, pricing, and marketing of disposable contact lens products which were not subject to a UPP.” Motion at 12. Class Plaintiffs argue that “[t]hese ‘non UPP’ product documents are essential for Class Plaintiffs to be able to analyze the changes in the market for disposable contact lenses attributable to the implementation of UPPs.” Id. Further, say Class Plaintiffs, “these documents are necessary in order to determine the relevant product market.” Id. at 13. Most Defendants object, again arguing the request is irrelevant and overly burdensome. See B&L’s Response at 7-10 (objecting but also stating that it “is amenable to a reasonable, targeted supplemental search for documents relating to any relevant business strategies and practices of B+L, which could encompass documents relating to both UPP and non-UPP products”[2]); Alcon’s Response at 7-9; CVI’s Response at 9-10; J&J’s Response at 10. Some Defendants, however, have produced or have agreed to produce transactional data for non-UPP products. See ABB’s Response at 2-3 (indicating it produced non-UPP transactional data); Alcon’s Response at 7 (indicating it produced non-UPP transactional data and will not redact non-UPP information from otherwise responsive documents); CVI’s Response at 10 (indicating it offered to produce pre-2013 non-UPP transactional data in exchange for no other ESI predating 2013); J&J’s Response at 10 (stating it “agreed to and did produce transactional data for non-UPP lenses”). Upon review of the parties' papers, the new dictates of Rule 26, and the cases interpreting Rule 26, the undersigned finds as follows with respect to the second issue. The Motion is GRANTED only to the extent that all Defendants must produce non-UPP product transactional data dating back to January 1, 2010 if they have not already done so. Otherwise, the Motion, as it relates to the second issue, is DENIED because any marginal benefit the other non-UPP documents may have is outweighed by the undue burden of searching for and collecting them (as more fully articulated in Defendants' Responses). After due consideration, it is ORDERED: Class Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents from Defendants (Doc. No. 248) is GRANTED in part, DENIED in part, and DENIED AS MOOT in part, as set forth above. DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida on July 25, 2016. Footnotes [1] This includes those Defendants whose products at issue were always subject to a UPP. The ruling with respect to the question of whether non-UPP documents must be produced is set forth below. [2] The parties thus far have not been able to agree on search terms.