ALLERGAN, INC., ALLERGAN PHARMACEUTICALS IRELAND, UNLIMITED COMPANY, ALLERGAN USA, INC., AND ALLERGAN SALES, LLC Plaintiffs, v. REVANCE THERAPEUTICS, INC. Defendant Civil Action No. 3:23-cv-00431 United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division, NASHVILLE DIVISION Filed February 26, 2025 Presnell, Todd, Special Master ORDER OF THE SPECIAL MASTER RESOLVING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO RFPs 64, 65, 67, 68, 70, 80, 87 and 88 *1 This case comes before the Special Master on Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production 64, 65, 67, 68, 70, 80, 87, and 88 (ECF 256) (the “Motion”). Upon consideration of the brief in support (ECF 256-1), the response in opposition (ECF 274), and the relevant position statements of the parties (ECF 202), the Special Master GRANTS the Motion in part and DENIES the Motion in part. I. General Background This is a trade secrets misappropriation case. Two classes of cosmetic products are at issue: (1) biologic therapeutics employing botulinum neurotoxin (“BoNT”) and (2) dermal fillers. Plaintiffs (various entities doing business under the “Allergan” trade name)[1] allege that Defendant Revance Therapeutics, Inc.[2] misappropriated trade secrets related to Plaintiffs' popular products Botox (a BoNT therapeutic) and Juvéderm (a dermal filler). See, e.g., Compl. (ECF 1) ¶ 1. Defendant allegedly accomplished this misappropriation by hiring Allergan employees and, presumably, encouraging them to take Plaintiffs' trade secrets with them. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 7–8, 10, 75, 87. Plaintiffs claim that, as a result of this alleged misappropriation, Defendant developed and obtained regulatory approval for a BoNT product competitive with Botox—Daxxify—faster than it otherwise would have (assuming it would have been able to at all). See, e.g., id. ¶ 127. Similarly, Defendant is allegedly using Allergan trade secrets to develop a “Botox biosimilar”[3] that would also compete with Botox. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 54–65. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendant has misappropriated Allergan trade secrets in marketing its “RHA Collection” of dermal filler products, which compete with Plaintiffs' Juvéderm dermal filler product. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 66–68. In particular, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant has misappropriated the following trade secrets: (i) characterization data concerning the Botox drug substance; (ii) the Botox Reference Standard; (iii) the critical reagents, standard operating procedures, protocols, and data associated with Allergan's CBPA technologies; (iv) Allergan's strategies and techniques to manufacture Botox, such as those described in confidential Botox regulatory filings relating to cell banks, upstream and downstream processes, storage conditions, finish-and-fill steps, and related data; (v) regulatory strategies and best practices; (vi) data regarding Allergan's customers for Botox and/or Juvéderm, including market data, preferences, contacts, buying history, confidential sales representative success rates, territories, identities and related information; (vii) marketing strategies for Botox and Juvéderm; (viii) Allergan's past, current, and future commercial and regulatory plans concerning Botox and/or Juvéderm; and (ix) strategies to compete in the marketplace, including against Revance's Daxxify and RHA products. *2 Id. ¶ 34. In response to a motion to dismiss, the Court held that—at least at the pleadings stage—Allergan properly alleged each of these sub-categories to be trade secrets worthy of trade secret protection. See ECF 69 at 29–35. No party has moved for summary judgment to definitively resolve the trade secret status of any of these sub-categories. Various discovery disputes have ensued throughout this litigation. On November 15, 2024, the parties jointly moved the Court to “appoint a discovery special master to resolve discovery disputes,” “[g]iven the number of discovery disputes currently pending before the Court and the number of disputes expected to be raised in the future based on the parties' discussions.” ECF 271 ¶ 6. The Court granted that request on November 18, 2024, stating that it would appoint a special master to rule on “all discovery matters currently pending before the Court, and all future discovery disputes.” ECF 275. On December 11, 2024, the Court appointed the undersigned as Special Master. ECF 292. II. Issues Raised by the Motion The Motion concerns a dispute over whether Defendant must provide documents responsive to certain of Plaintiffs' discovery requests. Two broad categories of documents are at issue: RFP Nos. 64, 65, 67, and 68 seek documents relating to Revance's financial data and forecasts, and RFP Nos. 70, 80, 87, and 88 seek documents relating to Revance's customers for both its Daxxify and RHA Collection products (collectively, the “Requests”). This dispute has a long history. Plaintiffs first raised the issue of perceived deficiencies in Defendant's responses to the eight Requests on December 18, 2023. ECF 202 ¶ 1. Thereafter, the parties participated in an extensive back-and-forth regarding their respective positions. See id. Although the parties' efforts resulted in a slight narrowing of certain of the Requests, as shown below, they could not resolve the dispute altogether, and Plaintiffs filed this Motion on November 1, 2024. ECF 256. The Motion seeks to compel Defendant to produce the following documents: RFP 64 65 67 68 70 80 87 88 Original Request All documents concerning any short-term or long-term forecasts or budgets concerning the RHA Collection. All documents concerning any short-term or long-term forecasts or budgets concerning DaxibotulinumtoxinA for Injection. All documents concerning any profit-and-loss statements, whether historical, current, or projected for DaxibotulinumtoxinA for Injection. All documents concerning any profit-and-loss statements, whether historical, current, or projected for the RHA Collection. Any commercial agreements into which Revance has entered with any third party concerning the RHA Collection. Documents sufficient to show any current or former RHA Collection customers in the United States for any Revance sales representatives who worked for Allergan before joining Revance. Documents sufficient to identify each customer of DaxibotulinumtoxinA for Injection in the United States. Documents sufficient to identify each customer of the RHA Collection in the United States. Narrowed Request None None All profit-and-loss statements, whether historical, current, or projected for DaxibotulinumtoxinA for Injection. All profit-and-loss statements, whether historical, current, or projected for the RHA Collection. Any commercial agreement into which Revance has entered with any Allergan customer concerning the RHA Collection. None None None III. Discussion *3 The Parties disagree whether the requested documents are relevant and proportional to the needs of the case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). Rule 26(b) permits parties to “obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). As the requesting party, Allergan has the initial burden to “demonstrate that the requests are relevant to the claims or defenses in the pending action.” Anderson v. Dillard's Inc., 251 F.R.D. 307, 309–10 (W.D. Tenn. 2008); see also id. at 309 (“Relevancy for discovery purposes is construed [more] broadly [than relevancy under the Federal Rules of Evidence].”). If Allergan makes that showing, the burden shifts to Revance to “establish that the information either is not relevant or is so marginally relevant that the presumption of broad disclosure is outweighed by the potential for undue burden or harm.” Staggs v. Panda Express, Inc., 2024 WL 4509101, at *2 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 16, 2024). As discussed below, the Special Master rules that Revance must respond to the Requests, with some limitations. a. Production of Defendant's financial data and forecasts (RFP Nos. 64, 65, 67, and 68) The Motion's first dispute concerns Defendant's unwillingness to produce certain financial data and forecasts responsive to RFP Nos. 64, 65, 67, and 68. i. Plaintiffs' entitlement to documents concerning the RHA Collection. As an initial matter, the Special Master addresses Revance's contention that Allergan is not entitled to documents responsive to RFP Nos. 64 and 68 because those requests seek documents relating to RHA Collection, which Defendant states it “did not develop and does not manufacture.” ECF 274 at 8. Defendant's position takes aim at the merits of Plaintiffs' claims, which “has little to do with whether [Allergan's] discovery requests are valid.” Delta T, LLC v. Williams, 337 F.R.D. 395, 399 (S.D. Ohio 2021). Plaintiffs claim misappropriation of trade secrets relating to dermal filler products, see Complaint (Compl. (ECF 1)) ¶ 34 (“The Allergan Trade Secrets include, for example ... (vii) marketing strategies for Botox and Juvéderm; (viii) Allergan's past, current, and future commercial and regulatory plans concerning Botox and/or Juvéderm; and (ix) strategies to compete in the marketplace, including against Revance's Daxxify and RHA products.”), and the District Court held that these are properly alleged to be trade secrets worthy of protection. ECF 69 at 29–35. Indeed, Defendant acknowledges that Plaintiffs allege Defendant was “able to enter the dermal filler market more rapidly” due to its alleged misappropriation, but contends that their allegations “make[ ] no sense.” ECF 274 at 8 (citing Compl. (ECF 1) ¶ 127). Whether Plaintiffs' legal theory will ultimately succeed is immaterial to whether the discovery Plaintiffs seek is “relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); see Delta T, LLC, 337 F.R.D. at 399 (“This Court may not deny a party relevant discovery because the other party, predictably, has a different view of the legal claims' merit.”). The Special Master rejects Defendant's request to narrow the scope of discovery based on perceived weaknesses in Plaintiffs' claims. ii. Relevance and proportionality of RFP Nos. 64, 65, 67, and 68. RFP Nos. 64, 65, 67, and 68 seek documents related to financial data and forecasts, including budgets and profit-and-loss statements. Plaintiffs argue that this information is relevant and necessary to calculate damages resulting from Defendant's alleged misappropriation. ECF 256-1 at 8. Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that documents responsive to RFP Nos. 64 and 65 “bear on the changes to Revance's RHA Collection and DaxibotulinumtoxinA for Injection business as a result of its misappropriation of Allergan's trade secrets” and that documents responsive to RFP Nos. 67 and 68 relate to Defendant's “unjust enrichment” and “illicit gains” resulting from its alleged trade secret theft. Id. at 9. *4 The Special Master agrees that Plaintiffs have made an initial showing that the documents sought are relevant to their claims. Plaintiffs allege violations of both the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1836(B), and the Tennessee Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1701 et seq. Each statute allows damages for unjust enrichment caused by a defendant's misappropriation that is not otherwise addressed in a plaintiff's actual loss. See 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(B)(i)-(ii); Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1704(a). Plaintiffs cite to case law illustrating that the type of financial information sought in RFP Nos. 64, 65, 67, and 68 is regularly utilized by experts to calculate damages in trade secrets cases, especially where a plaintiff alleges that the misappropriation gave the defendant an unfair acceleration into the market (ECF 256-1 at 8–9) (citing cases), as Allergan alleges here, see Compl. (ECF 1) ¶ 1 (“In attempting to accelerate the development of its BoNT injectable products and the marketing and sales of those products and its dermal fillers, Revance is unfairly exploiting the enormous efforts and financial commitment that Allergan devoted to its flagship products, [Botox] and Juvéderm dermal fillers.”); ¶ 65 (“Saving time, resources, and effort is extremely valuable for biosimilar manufacturers, since getting to market as quickly as possible is a key commercial goal and translates to potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in increased product sales revenue and market share.”). Because the documents sought are relevant, the burden shifts to Revance to establish they are not discoverable. Staggs, 2024 WL 4509101 at *2. Revance's arguments on this point can be broken into three categories. First, Revance argues the Requests seek irrelevant documents. As to RFP Nos. 64 and 65, Revance argues that it is “undisputed neither is relevant to a calculation of Allergan's alleged damages.” ECF 274 at 11. It is unclear where Revance derives its statement that this issue is undisputed. As explained above, Allergan contends—and the Special Master agrees—that Revance's short-term and long-term forecasts or budgets concerning the DaxibotulinumtoxinA and RHA Collection are relevant for purposes of calculating damages and cites to numerous cases in support. ECF 256-1 at 7–11. Revance itself acknowledges that the cases on which Allergan relies stand for the proposition “that experts sometimes may rely on forecasts and business plans” in calculating damages. ECF 274 at 12–13. Such is the purpose Allergan seeks to fulfill with the documents it requests in RFP Nos. 64 and 65, and Revance has not otherwise presented persuasive argument that those documents are not relevant. Similarly, Revance's argument regarding the relevance of the documents sought in RFP Nos. 67 and 68 fails because it assumes that only actual profits can be used as a measure of damages in trade secrets cases. Here, Revance cites University Computing Co. v. Lykes-Youngstown Corp., 504 F.2d 518, 536 (5th Cir. 1974) for the proposition that, “[i]n trade secret cases, ‘normally only the defendant's actual profits can be used as a measure of damages in cases where profits can be proved, and the defendant is normally not assessed damages on wholly speculative expectations of profits.’ ” ECF 274 at 12 (alterations adopted). But University Computing was decided before the Defend Trade Secrets Act and its Tennessee equivalent were passed, and each statute explicitly allows for recovery of damages outside of “actual loss.” See 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(B)(i)-(ii); Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1704(a). Revance also cites to NexPay, Inc. v. Comdata Network, Inc., 2017 WL 4467476 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 6, 2017), to suggest that Allergan not be granted “unfettered access” to Revance's profit-and-loss statements that are “wholly unrelated to the products at issue.” ECF 274 at 11. But NexPay cuts against Revance's position, as the Court there compelled the production of requested profit information, limited to the specific product at issue. See NexPay, 2017 WL 4467476 at *4 (granting in part motion to compel after limiting RFP to “gross profits obtained from processing virtual payments using a funding-at-authorization model since [defendant] entered into the non-disclosure agreement”). Here, Plaintiffs limited RFP Nos. 67 and 68 to the Daxxify and RHA Collection products forming the basis of this lawsuit, and Revance has not demonstrated that the documents sought relating to those two products are not relevant. *5 Second, Revance argues that it has produced information sufficient for Allergan to calculate its damages by producing certain sales data for Daxxify and RHA Collection and by pointing Allergan to publicly available quarterly earnings reports.[4] ECF 274 at 10–11. Revance's previously provided information is distinct from the information which Allergan requests in RFP Nos. 64, 65, 67, and 68. Allergan represents that it does not have access to the information sought in those Requests which, as explained above, seek relevant information. And Revance does not show that it previously provided the specific information sought or that this information is accessible from some other source. Third, Revance argues that the Requests are overbroad and that responding “would require [it] to produce hundreds of thousands, if not millions of pages of documents unrelated to the Complaint's allegations.” ECF 274 at 11. As explained above, the documents sought are related to the Complaint's allegations. The Special Master also finds that the Requests are not as far-reaching as Defendant perceives them to be. Revance emphasizes that the Requests seek financial information from “throughout Revance's existence.” ECF 274 at 10. But, by Plaintiffs' own allegations, Defendant did not have a dermal filler product competitive with Juvéderm on the market until 2020, and it did not have a BoNT product competitive with Botox on the market until September 2022. Compl. (ECF 1) ¶¶ 4, 66. Accordingly, Defendant's search should begin in 2020 for financial documents relating to its RHA Collection product, and it should begin in September 2022 for financial documents relating to Daxxify. Compare ECF 302 at 22 (explaining that, in responding to RFP 26, “Defendant's search should begin in 2020 for communications soliciting Allergan's Juvéderm customers, and it should begin in September 2022 for communications soliciting Allergan's Botox customers”). The Requests do not, therefore, seek financial documents spanning Revance's entire history, which began with its founding in 1999. See Compl. (ECF 1) ¶ 48. That said, the Special Master agrees that RFP Nos. 64 and 65, which seek “all documents concerning any short-term or long-term forecasts or budgets concerning [the RHA Collection or Daxxify],” (see ECF 256-1 at 8 (emphasis added)), are overly broad and do not state with specificity the documents sought. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(1)(A) (explaining that a request for documents pursuant to the Federal Rules “must describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to be inspected”). As written, the Requests leave Revance to guess what documents “concern” short-term or long-term forecasts or budgets for the relevant products. See Peterson v. Corby, 347 F.R.D. 192, 195 (E.D. Mich. 2024) (“A document request should not call on the producing party to engage in a subjective guessing game of whether a document is responsive.”) (quotations omitted). Perhaps recognizing the breadth of a request seeking “all documents,” Allergan narrowed its Requests in RFP Nos. 67 and 68 to remove that phrase and to seek “[a]ll profit-and-loss statements, whether historical, current, or projected” for either Daxxify or RHA Collection. ECF 256-1 at 8. Allergan did not similarly narrow its Requests in RFP Nos. 64 and 65 but does not provide any explanation for its failure to do so. The Special Master holds that a limitation of RFPs 64 and 65 is warranted. In response to RFP No. 64, Revance must produce “all short-term or long-term forecasts or budgets concerning the RHA Collection” from January 2020 to present. In response to RFP No. 65, Revance must produce “all short-term or long-term forecasts or budgets concerning DaxibotulinumtoxinA for Injection” from September 2022 to present. *6 Consistent with the above, the Special Master grants in part the Motion to Compel and orders Defendant to produce documents responsive to RFP Nos. 67 and 68, as narrowed, and its short-term or long-term forecasts or budgets concerning Daxxify and RHA Collection products for the above-described date ranges. The Special Master denies the Motion to Compel as to the remaining documents sought in RFPs 64 and 65 due to the lack of specificity. Because the current deadline is fast approaching (March 21, 2025), the Special Master rules that Defendant must complete this production by March 7, 2025. b. Production of documents relating to Defendant's customers for Daxxify and RHA Collection Products (RFP Nos. 70, 80, 87, and 88) The Parties' next dispute relates to Defendant's unwillingness to produce documents responsive to RFP Nos. 70, 80, 87, and 88, which seek information relating to Revance's customers for Daxxify and RHA Collection products. Specifically, Requests 70 and 80 seek documents relating to current and past Allergan customers and Revance sales representatives who previously worked for Allergan. ECF 256-1 at 11. Requests 87 and 88 are broader and ask Revance to produce documents sufficient to identify each customer of Daxxify and RHA Collection in the United States. Id. The Special Master will first address Requests 87 and 88. As an initial matter, the Special Master partially addressed the issue of whether Allergan is entitled to Revance's customer lists in the Order of the Special Master Resolving Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Production of Certain Documents. ECF 302. In that Renewed Motion to Compel, Allergan sought, among other things, “Revance's customer list, or a list of Revance customers who overlap with Allergan's customers.” ECF 215 at 20 (emphasis added). Although at that time Allergan represented that it would accept only a list of Revance customers who overlap with Allergan's customers, it expressly reserved the right to seek more customer information at a later date. Id. at 20 n.7. In the Order on the Renewed Motion to Compel, the Special Master agreed with Allergan that the identity of shared customers is relevant to Allergan's claims and ordered that Revance respond to Interrogatory No. 5 by either (1) producing its entire list of customers for its Daxxify and RHA Collection products, or (2) producing a “shared” list of customers for these products. Id. at 25–26. Requests 87 and 88 are broader than Allergan's previous requests and seek Revance's full customer lists for its Daxxify and RHA Collection products. Allergan contends this information is relevant to the extent it shows that Revance gained new customers due to its alleged misappropriation. ECF 256-1 at 13. In support, Allergan cites to Dow Corning Corp. v. Jie Xiao, a case in which the court agreed that information relating to the defendant's customers, including lists of current and former customers, was relevant for assessing both liability and damages on the plaintiffs' trade secret misappropriation claims. 2011 WL 6739403 at *5–6 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 22, 2011). Plaintiffs' position is persuasive, and Defendant does not meaningfully dispute that the lists sought in Requests 87 and 88 are not relevant to Allergan's claims. The Special Master agrees that the requested documents would show not only the customers that Revance may have solicited directly from Allergan but would also reveal information about Revance's customer base generally, which is relevant for showing damages. See Dow Corning Corp., 2011 WL 6739403 at *5–6. Revance intimates that Requests 87 and 88 are broad, see ECF 274 at 13, but it does not contend that the customer lists would themselves be a burden to produce. Indeed, Revance acknowledges that Allergan has produced its own list of “hundreds of thousands” of customers to Revance. ECF 274 at 14. And Revance further acknowledges that, in comparison, it has only approximately 7,500 aesthetic accounts across its products business, with approximately 3,700 accounts for Daxxify. Id. at 13. Nor does Revance contend that information requested in RFPs 87 and 88 is protected such that it would have to spend substantial time reviewing and redacting portions of the list for confidentiality. Indeed, Revance specifically states that “customer lists are not trade secrets in this industry.” Id. In sum, while Revance contends that Requests 87 and 88 have a wide scope, it provides no evidence to demonstrate that the process of turning over its Daxxify and RHA Collection customer lists would be a burdensome process. Indeed, as described below, producing the customer lists for Daxxify and RHA Collection will equip Allergan to find the information requested in RFP No. 80 on its own and to make a more targeted request in RFP No. 70, thereby lessening the burden on Revance to find information responsive to those Requests. Accordingly, the Special Master grants Allergan's Motion to Compel responses to RFP Nos. 87 and 88. *7 The Special Master next addresses RFP Nos. 70 and 80. As intimated in the previous Order relating to RFP No. 26 and Interrogatory No. 5, see ECF 302, the Special Master agrees that requiring Revance to unilaterally cross-reference its customer lists with those of Allergan to identify shared customers would cause undue burden. See ECF 274 at 13–14. As Revance points out, although Allergan has provided it with a list of customers, that list consists of hundreds of thousands of names, and Revance would have to sift through the list to determine the customers with which it works and whether each customer has ever purchased Daxxify or RHA Collection. Id. at 14–15. Allergan has represented that it is amenable to shouldering this burden. See Doc. 256-1 at 14 (“With respect to RFP 80, Revance argued that it would be too burdensome to identify Allergan customers that became Revance customers but refused to produce Revance's customer list so that Allergan can undertake that burden.”). As Allergan acknowledges, production of the customer lists requested in RFP Nos. 87 and 88 will necessarily include the documents requested in RFP No. 80. Similarly, production of the customer lists requested in RFP Nos. 87 and 88 will equip Allergan to make a more targeted request in RFP 70 for commercial agreements involving specific customers. For these reasons, the Special Master holds that Defendant shall produce documents responsive to Requests 87 and 88 on or before March 7, 2025. By March 14, 2025, Allergan shall serve an amended RFP No. 70 seeking commercial agreements for specific customers. IV. Conclusion In accordance with the foregoing, the Special Master hereby ORDERS that: 1. Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Responses to RFPs Nos. 64, 65, 67, 68, 70, 80, 87, and 88 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART: a. Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Responses to RFP Nos. 67, 68, 87, and 88 is GRANTED. b. Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Responses to RFP Nos. 64 and 65 is GRANTED IN PART. Defendant SHALL produce the following documents responsive to RFP Nos. 64 and 65: i. Defendant SHALL produce all short-term or long-term forecasts or budgets concerning the RHA Collection from January 2020 to present. ii. Defendant SHALL produce all short-term or long-term forecasts or budgets concerning DaxibotulinumtoxinA for Injection from September 2022 to present. c. Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Responses to RFP No. 80 is DENIED AS MOOT. 2. Defendants SHALL produce responsive documents on or before March 7, 2025.3. On or before March 14, 2025, Allergan SHALL serve an amended RFP No. 70 seeking specific commercial agreements. 4. Pursuant to paragraph three of the Court's Order Modifying Case Management Order and Granting Request for the Appointment of a Special Master (ECF 275), the parties have twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order to file objections or a motion to adopt or modify any of the Special Master's rulings in this Order Footnotes [1] This Order refers to Plaintiffs as “Plaintiffs” and “Allergan” interchangeably. [2] This Order refers to Defendant as “Defendant” and “Revance” interchangeably. [3] A “biosimilar” is a product “highly similar” to an existing biologic product that has already obtained regulatory approval. Compl. (ECF 1) ¶ 57. If the manufacturer of the biosimilar can prove that there are “no ‘clinically meaningful differences’ between the [biosimilar and the already-licensed product] in terms of ‘safety, purity, and potency,’ ” the biosimilar can bypass certain stages of the regulatory process, saving time and expense. Id. (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 262). [4] On this point, Revance contends that it previously agreed to produce documents sufficient to show profits and losses related to Daxxify and RHA Collection and that Allergan refused to agree. ECF 274 at 11. But review of the referenced exhibits shows that Allergan responded to Revance's offer to produce certain profits and losses documents by asking whether such documents would contain historical and projected profits and losses information. It is unclear from the docket whether Revance responded to Allergan's inquiry.