ALLERGAN, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. REVANCE THERAPEUTICS, INC., Defendant Case No. 3:23-cv-00431 United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division Signed July 03, 2024 Counsel Eric W. Dittmann, Matthew S. Aibel, Melanie R. Rupert, Amanda Lane Pober, Carl J. Minniti, III, Paul Hastings LLP, New York, NY, P. Anthony Sammi, Latham & Watkins LLP, New York, NY, Andrea Pallios Roberts, Paul Hastings LLP, Palo Alto, CA, Brenda L. Danek, Latham & Watkins LLP, Chicago, IL, Cecilia Peniza, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC, Richard Rothman, Jeffrey A. Pade, James V. Razick, Paul Hastings LLP, Washington, DC, Gabrielle LaHatte, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Francisco, CA, Jessica Eve Mendelson, Paul Hastings LLP, San Francisco, CA, Jennifer S. Baldocchi, Lindsey C. Jackson, Paul Hastings LLP, Los Angeles, CA, William A. Blue, Jr., Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP, Brentwood, TN, for Plaintiffs. Catherine H. Molloy, Greenberg Traurig LLP, Tampa, FL, Diana A. Balluku, Gregory S. Bombard, Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Boston, MA, Jacob R. Dean, Justin K. Victor, Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Atlanta, GA, James N. Boudreau, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendant. Frensley, Jeffery S., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER I. INTRODUCTION *1 Plaintiffs Allergan, Inc.; Allergan Pharmaceuticals Ireland Unlimited Company; Allergan USA, Inc.; and Allergan Sales, LLC (collectively, “Allergan”) brought this suit against Defendant Revance Therapeutics, Inc. (“Revance”) alleging misappropriation of trade secrets under the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (“DTSA”) (18 U.S.C. § 1836) and the Tennessee Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“TUTSA”) (Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1701, et seq.) related to Allergan's botulinum neurotoxin injectable products and dermal fillers, including its “flagship products,” collectively known as Botox. Docket No. 1 (Complaint). Revance has denied the substantive allegations and asserted affirmative defenses. Docket No. 87. This matter is now before the Court upon a Motion to Compel filed by Allergan. Docket No. 129. Allergan has also filed a Supporting Memorandum. Docket Nos. 128, 129-1.[1] Revance has filed a Response in Opposition. Docket Nos. 154, 152. Allergan has filed a Reply. Docket Nos. 168, 178. Allergan has also filed a document titled “Plaintiffs' Portion of Joint Statement of Issues Pursuant to Local Rule 37.01.” Docket No. 101. For the reasons set forth below, Allergan's Motion (Docket No. 129) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If, following the meet and confer process set forth below, the Parties are unable to completely resolve their dispute, Allergan may re-file its Motion. II. LAW AND ANALYSIS Revance argues that Allergan has failed to meet and confer in a good faith attempt to resolve this discovery dispute. Docket No. 154, p. 6. Revance maintains that it “expressed a willingness to work with Allergan to produce reasonable documents and information in response to narrowed requests,” but that “[a]fter a few emails and a single phone call, Allergan filed a partial joint statement, quickly followed by a 25-page motion to compel.” Id. Revance requests that the Court “send Allergan back to the drawing board, so the parties may continue to resolve this matter without Court guidance.” Id. Further, Revance contends that the Parties have made significant progress in resolving this discovery dispute since the Motion was filed. Specifically, Revance asserts: [S]ince Allergan first filed its Motion, the parties have worked towards resolution. Revance has agreed to search the custodial files of seven additional current or former Revance employees, in addition to the seven it originally agreed to, for a total of 14 custodians. ... The parties are also negotiating search terms to apply to these custodial files. Once the parties reach agreement on search terms and custodians, many, if not all, of the disputes Allergan prematurely raised with the Court in the Motion would be resolved. ... Revance has also agreed to produce five third-party agreements Allergan seeks via the Motion, provided Allergan agrees to limit distribution of some of those agreements to outside counsel only. *2 ... The parties have also largely worked through their differences on customer lists—Allergan produced lists of its customers, and Revance will either cross-reference Allergan's list to generate a list of shared customers or it will produce its own list of customers with whom the sales representatives referenced in the complaint interact. In sum, the parties have made progress in negotiating resolution to many of the issues Allergan raised in the Motion, and they continue to work to remove these issues from the Court's docket. Id. at 5-6. Allergan maintains that it has “fulfilled its obligations” and characterizes Revance's arguments as “attempts to delay.” Docket No. 168, p. 5. Allergan describes the Parties' meet and confer efforts as follows: The parties exchanged several letters before meeting-and-conferring about the topics in this motion on January 18, 2024. This initial conference proved futile because Revance refused to meaningfully negotiate and abruptly terminated the call before addressing the issues. Allergan then sought the Court's assistance through a Rule 16 Conference, hoping to address Revance's recalcitrance and refusal to discuss the very subjects in this motion. In response, Revance disingenuously claimed, on February 8, 2024, that the parties had not “exhaustively” met and conferred. Allergan next tried to raise the issues by sending a joint statement to Revance on March 22, 2024. Once again, Revance refused to participate in the process. Given the pattern and practice of Revance's refusal to engage, Allergan filed this motion. Id. (citations omitted). The Local Rules of this District require that counsel meet and confer in an attempt to resolve disputes before filing most motions: In cases in which all parties are represented by counsel, all motions, except motions under Rule 12, 56, 59, or 60, but including discovery motions, must state that counsel for the moving party has conferred with all other counsel, and whether or not the relief requested in the motion is opposed. In those instances where counsel for the moving party is unable to confer with all other counsel, the motion must describe all attempts made to confer with counsel and the results of such attempts. LR 7.01(a)(1). The requirement to meet and confer in a good faith attempt to resolve a dispute is not a hollow one. See HLFIP Holdings v. Rutherford Cty., No. 3:19-cv-00714, 2021 WL 6498866, at *–––– – ––––, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 250873 at *10-11 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 5, 2021). Yet, it appears to the Court that the Parties have not conferred as required. Indeed, the one point of agreement between the Parties is that a meaningful meet and confer that addresses the actual issues in dispute has not taken place. Given that agreement and the prospect that many of the issues raised in the Motion have either already been resolved or have changed materially since the Motion was filed, the principles of judicial economy are not served by addressing the merits of the Motion at this time. The Court has attempted to give the Parties some leeway in deciding the manner in which they meet the requirement to meet and confer, but it appears that a more structured process is necessary. Therefore, no later than July 19, 2024, lead counsel for the Parties must meet and confer in person in an attempt to resolve this dispute. If the Parties are unable to reach a complete resolution, Allergan may re-file its Motion with regard to any unresolved discovery requests. Allergan must simultaneously file a notice stating when and where the required conference took place and listing the attendees. Going forward, the Parties must follow this process prior to filing any further discovery motions (except those that are unopposed). Given the excellence of representation on both sides of this matter, the Court is optimistic that the Parties will be able to make progress to move this case forward. III. CONCLUSION *3 For the foregoing reasons, Allergan's Motion (Docket No. 129) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If the Parties are not able to reach a complete resolution after following the process set forth above, Allergan may re-file its Motion. IT IS SO ORDERED. Footnotes [1] Many of the filings associated with this Motion have been filed both under seal and in redacted form in the public record.