RICHARD LEON, individually and as PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JUANITA LEON, deceased, Plaintiff, v. URL PHARMA, INC., et al., Defendants Case No. CV 22-8539 MEMF (PVCx) United States District Court, C.D. California Filed May 16, 2025 Castillo, Pedro V., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (Dkt. No. 69) I. INTRODUCTION *1 Plaintiff Richard Leon seeks recovery against Defendant Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. under a newer theory of California tort law, one that allows someone injured by a generic drug to collect damages from the maker of an equivalent brand-name drug if that maker created a drug label that failed to adequately warn about side effects related to the person's injury. Defendant appears to disfavor this new cause of action—known commonly as “innovator liability”—and has repeatedly highlighted broad legal disapproval of the tort (see, e.g., Dkt. No. 22-1 at 7), even raising the issue in the discovery process (see “Joint Stip.,” Dkt. No. 70 at 11).[1] Sitting in diversity jurisdiction, this Court has no power to disturb binding authority from the California Supreme Court. And this Court's role as a discovery referee is simply to determine the relevance of potential information based on the tort as it currently exists. Defendant explicitly acknowledges this reality (id. at 11–12), but so narrowly construes the elements of the action that it has inundated Plaintiff with excessive relevance, burdensome, and proportionality objections that have no merit. The majority of Plaintiff's discovery requests are appropriate. For the reasons stated below and on the record at the hearing, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (“Motion,” Dkt. No. 69) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendant shall serve supplemental discovery responses and documents as required here no later than June 2, 2025. II. ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT This matter arises from Decedent Juanita Leon's allegedly fatal reaction to a generic version the name-brand antibiotic Bactrim. (“Compl.,” Dkt. No. 1 at 8–9). Defendant produces and distributes brand-name Bactrim. (Id. at 7). Defendant does not produce the generic version of Bactrim that allegedly harmed Decedent. (See id. at 8–9). Still, Plaintiff sues Defendant under California's “innovator liability” tort. (Id. at 4 & n.1). That state's high court recognized innovator liability in T.H. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 4 Cal.5th 145 (2017). As outlined in T.H., there exists a cause of action where someone is injured by a generic drug because a prescribing physician relied on a negligently written warning label created by the brand-name producer. Id. at 165–74. Liability is appropriate, T.H. holds, because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration requires that generic drugs use the warning label for their brand-name counterparts. Id. at 166. Given this regulatory framework, it is foreseeable that individuals who take generic medicines will do so after prescribing physicians rely on brand-name warnings. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Decedent's physician prescribed Decent Bactrim for an infection in her leg on April 1, 2020. (Compl. at 8). Decedent began consuming generic Bactrim. (Id.). A day later, she arrived at the hospital, where attending personnel observed Decedent was experiencing a rash, diaphoresis, and difficulty breathing. (Id.). Her skin began sloughing off. (Id.). She developed extensive wounds. (Id. at 9). Doctors diagnosed Decedent with Bactrim induced toxic epidermal necrolysis (“TEN”). (Id.). They transferred her to a burn unit at which point Decedent's skin involvement had progressed to 43.5% of her total body surface area. (Id.). Decedent died because of Bactrim induced Stevens-Johnson Syndrome (“SJS”)/TEN and related sequelae on April 12, 2020. (Id.). III. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND *2 On November 22, 2022, Plaintiff—who is Decedent's son and represents her estate—filed suit against Defendants URL Pharma, Inc., United Research Laboratories, Inc., Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, Inc., Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. (“Sun Pharma”), Sun Pharmaceutical Holdings, USA, Inc., and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited on behalf of himself and Juanita Leon's estate bringing claims for: (1) negligence and negligent failure to warn; (2) negligent misrepresentation; (3) gross negligence; and (4) fraud and fraudulent concealment. (See generally Compl.). Plaintiff brings his claims under the theory of innovator liability, whereby he seeks to hold Sun Pharma liable for the deficient labeling and warnings of the generic version of Bactrim. (Id. at 4 n.1). On February 21, 2023, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of Defendants URL Pharma, Inc., United Research Laboratories, Inc., Sun Pharmaceutical Holdings, USA, Inc., and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Limited, leaving Sun Pharma and Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. as the two remaining Defendants in this case.[2] On May 18, 2023, Defendant moved to dismiss this case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). (Dkt. No. 22). Defendant argued that the Court lacked personal jurisdiction. (See id.).[3] The Court denied Defendant's motion. (Dkt. No. 43). The Court held that Plaintiff's Complaint adequately pled specific jurisdiction over Defendant by meeting the three relevant factors enumerated in AT&T Co. v. Compagnie Bruxelles Lambert, 94 F.3d 586, 588 (9th Cir. 1996). (Dkt. No. 43 at 5–6, 7–13). First, the Court found that Bactrim's expenditure of $405,402.28 in 2021 to California physicians and medical personnel (presumably to market Bactrim) and regular communication with the California Board of Pharmacy regarding the use and sale of its drugs was sufficient to show that Defendant purposely availed itself of the California forum. (Id. at 7–8). Second, the Court found that Plaintiff's allegation that Defendant transmitted substantially false information about brand-name Bactrim to the California market was sufficient to show that Plaintiff's claims arose out of Defendant's forum-related activities.[4] (Dkt. No. 43 at 8–9). Finally, the Court found it reasonable to exercise jurisdiction over Defendant, especially considering Defendant's previous history litigating cases in California. (Id. at 11–13). At the parties' request, the Court conducted an informal telephonic discovery conference on December 11, 2024, to address Defendant's nonresponse to Plaintiff Richard Leon's discovery requests. (Dkt. No. 61). The Court encouraged the parties to continue discussing the discovery disputes and urged them to reach a resolution, which, at the time, seemed like a possible outcome. (Id.). The parties agreed that Defendant would serve written responses by a certain agreed upon date and would produce a list of responsive documents. (Id.). Rolling discovery would begin shortly thereafter. (Id.). Still struggling to resolve their disputes, the parties again requested an informal discovery conference. The Court on February 6, 2025, held a second conference and ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding the issues. (Dkt. No. 66). Subsequent discussions were not fruitful, and Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery on numerous subjects. (Dkt. No. 69). Pursuant to Local Rule 37-2, the parties submitted a Joint Stipulation in connection with the Motion (“Joint Stip.,” Dkt. No. 70) and accompanying exhibits. The Court also granted the parties request to supplement the Joint Stipulation with three additional exhibits. (Dkt. Nos. 71, 78). Plaintiff later filed an optional supplemental memorandum as permitted by Local Rule 37-2.3. (“Pl. Supp.,” Dkt. No. 75). *3 The Court held a Zoom hearing on the Motion and took the matter under submission on April 15, 2025. (Dkt. No. 81). IV. SCOPE OF PERMISSIBLE DISCOVERY Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), as amended on December 1, 2015, provides: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Evidence is relevant if “it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence, and the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. “The relevance standard is commonly recognized as one that is necessarily broad in scope in order to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.” Raya v. Barka, 2022 WL 686460, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2022) (citation omitted); see also Sci. Games Corp. v. AGS LLC, 2017 WL 3013251, at *2 (D. Nev. July 13, 2017) (“Even after the 2015 amendments, courts continue to recognize that discovery relevance remains ‘broad’ in scope.”). “The proportionality inquiry [in Rule 26(b)(1)] focuses, at bottom, on analyzing the marginal utility of the discovery being sought.” V5 Techs. v. Switch, Ltd., 334 F.R.D. 306, 314 (D. Nev. 2019) (citation omitted). While the scope of permissible discovery may be broad, because discovery must be both relevant and proportional to the needs of the case, the right to discovery, even plainly relevant discovery, is not limitless. The 2015 amendments to Rule 26 “were designed to protect against over-discovery and to emphasize judicial management of the discovery process, especially for those cases in which the parties do not themselves effectively manage discovery.” Noble Roman's, Inc. v. Hattenhauer Distrib. Co., 314 F.R.D. 304, 308 (S.D. Ind. 2016); see Davita HealthCare Partners, Inc. v. United States, 125 Fed. Cl. 394, 398 n.3 (2016) (the 2015 amendments to the Federal Rules “contribute to the overall goal of regulating the time and expense of litigation”). “Upon a motion to compel discovery, the movant has the initial burden of demonstrating relevance. In turn, the party opposing discovery has the burden of showing that discovery should not be allowed, and also has the burden of clarifying, explaining and supporting its objections with competent evidence.” United States v. McGraw-Hill Cos., 2014 WL 1647385, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2014) (citations omitted); see DIRECTV, Inc. v. Trone, 209 F.R.D. 455, 458 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (“The party who resists discovery has the burden to show that discovery should not be allowed, and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objections.”). *4 In responding to a request to produce documents, the responding party must affirmatively state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C) (“An objection must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection.”). “A proper written response should also provide sufficient information for the requesting party, and the court, to be satisfied that the responding party conducted an adequate investigation for responsive materials.” In re Rivera, No. CV 16-4676, 2017 WL 5163695, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2017); see Atcherley v. Clark, No. 12 CV 0225, 2014 WL 4660842, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2014) (“In responding to discovery requests, a reasonable inquiry must be made, and if no responsive documents or tangible things exist, the responding party should so state with sufficient specificity to allow the Court to determine whether the party made a reasonable inquiry and exercised due diligence.”) (citations omitted). V. THE DISPUTED REQUESTS, RESPONSES AND ANALYSIS A. Defendant Must Provide Responsive Documents for Products Other Than Bactrim in Requests for Production, Interrogatories, and Jurisdictional Responses. Plaintiff seeks “responsive discovery information from Defendant for both brand name Bactrim and generic formulations of Bactrim (sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim), because the name brand drug and the generic equivalent are identical chemical products with the same risk of SJS and TEN.” (Joint Stip. at 17). While reserving the right to object on the basis of relevance, materiality, proportionality, burden, privilege, and admissibility of the information Plaintiff seeks, Defendant has agreed to supplement its discovery responses to produce copies of regulatory submissions to and from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration concerning Bactrim and its association with SJS and TEN. (Id. at 19). Specifically, Defendant agrees to produce this information as it pertains to Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) No. 071017 (generic Bactrim tablets) and discontinued New Drug Application (“NDA”) Nos. 017560 (brand-name Bactrim oral suspension) 018374 (brand-name Bactrim injection). (Id.). Plaintiff's general requests for information related to both brand-name Bactrim and its generic counterpart sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim (“SMX-TMP”) are appropriate. As Bactrim and SMX-TMP are chemically identical, it stands to reason that both drugs would present the same safety concerns. Defendant's knowledge of these potential hazards for both drugs are naturally relevant to Plaintiff's innovator liability claims; such knowledge (or lack thereof) would help explain whether Defendant negligently or appropriately labeled Bactrim, an issue that sits at the very heart of this case. Defendant's general objections to these requests (id. at 19–20), which are not fully articulated in the Joint Stipulation, are OVERRULED. B. Defendant Shall Provide Foreign Discovery Materials as Requested by Plaintiff. Plaintiff requests “safety information obtained from foreign sources that are legally required to be reported to the FDA based on FDA regulations” regarding SJS and TEN risk information for Bactrim “includ[ing] foreign scientific publications, foreign adverse events involving Bactrim and information from other companies ... through pharmacovigilance and adverse event sharing agreements.” (Id. at 20–21). Defendant “objects to the Discovery as irrelevant, unduly burdensome, and overly broad to the extent it seeks information relating to foreign regulatory submissions, labeling, or otherwise pertains to sales, marketing, or regulatory activities occurring outside of the United States.” (Id. at 20). Defendant also contends that it has complied with its obligations regarding this information pursuant to an agreement between the parties that Defendant would produce regulatory information from five specific countries: United Kingdom, Germany, Thailand, India, and Canada. (Id. at 24; Dkt. No. 70-39 at 2). *5 The materials requested are relevant. Though foreign regulations may be more exacting than their American counterparts, see In re Incretin-Based Therapies Prods. Liab. Litig., 524 F. Supp. 3d 1007, 1023 (S.D. Cal. 2021), information related to them may reveal Defendant's knowledge about dangerous side effects to Bactrim especially because these regulations may be more stringent. That Defendant agreed to provide regulatory information from five countries prior to this motion does not render this issue moot. Plaintiff requests broader information than just the “foreign regulatory discovery” (Pl. Supp at 3) discussed in the discovery agreement Defendant invokes. Defendant's relevance objection is OVERRULED. Its remaining objections are boilerplate and lack adequate analysis. Those objections are also OVERRULED. C. The Parties Shall Proceed with ESI As Requested by Plaintiff. At the outset of discovery, the parties agreed to defer custodial ESI until an initial round of discovery and document protection. (See Joint Stip. at 26–27). In the course of discovery, though, they disagreed on whether sufficient document production occurred to proceed with ESI. (See id. at 26–29). Still, Plaintiff outlined his initial requested ESI on February 14, 2025. (See Dkt. No. 70-19). The requested terms include six drug names (A terms) and 203 search terms (B terms). (Dkt. No. 70-19 (Exhibit 19). Plaintiff listed four custodians. (Id. at 3). Defendant objects that the request is premature and that it goes beyond the scope of discovery, is unduly burdensome, and is disproportionate. Assuming that the parties have not yet come to an agreement on ESI terms (see Joint Stip. at 29), the Court finds Plaintiff's request reasonable. Defendant has failed to explain how the proposed ESI search terms are burdensome to Defendant. That different courts have previously rejected proposed ESI because initial requests included many terms does not mean a blanket bar applies to any such request. Defendant has not explained why the specific suggested terms Plaintiff requests are irrelevant to the issues in this case. Nor does Defendant explain how much time or money the proposed search would consume. Defendant's objections are OVERRULED. Accordingly, Defendant shall perform the ESI search as described in Plaintiff's February 14 letter. After this discovery is performed, the parties shall meet and confer in good faith to expand the ESI search to include more with custodians and, with good cause, more search terms. D. Defendant Shall Not Limit Its Search of Adverse Event Databases to Strictly “SJS” and “TEN” Terms. Plaintiff requests that Defendant search its adverse event databases and produce information broader than that strictly related to SJS and TEN. (See id. at 30–37). Specifically, Plaintiff requests results based on a search of forty-one specific terms aimed at finding Severe Cutaneous Adverse Reactions (“SCAR”). (Id. at 31 & 33). “Severe cutaneous adverse reaction (SCAR) consists of Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS/TEN), drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), and generalized bullous fixed drug eruptions (GBFDE).” Burton v. AbbVie, Inc., No. 222CV05920FMOMAR, 2023 WL 4677028, at *6 (C.D. Cal. June 1, 2023).[5] The terms cover a broader range of conditions than just SJS and TEN but that have similar characteristics. *6 Plaintiff also requests that Defendant search for the terms “Stevens Johnson Syndrome (SJS) AND Toxic Epidural Necrosis (TEN)” in what is called the “event as reported” field (Joint Stip. at 31). Using the “event as reported” field will pull records where doctors who reported an adverse reaction from their patients described their patients' reactions as potentially being SJS and TEN. Defendant objects to this discovery as irrelevant, unduly burdensome, overly broad, and disproportionate to the needs of this case. (Id. at 35). Plaintiff requests this information so he can review information that Defendant “should have ... analyzed for new increased risks for incidences; increased risks to at-risk populations such as females and elderly; or increased risks from genetic predisposition to Bactrim-related SCAR adverse events that were either not analyzed or not reported to the FDA.” (Id. at 30). The relevancy, then, is that these related adverse reactions might have alerted Defendant that Bactrim could have reacted especially poorly with certain groups. Similar adverse reactions might have been inaccurately categorized. These potential materials are relevant. Defendant's other objections are boilerplate. The objections are OVERRULED. E. Defendant's Burdensome and Proportionality Objections Are Largely Boilerplate and Are Overruled to the Extent that the Objections Do Not Include Individualized Argument. Defendant repeatedly objects to Plaintiff's discovery requests as burdensome (see, e.g., Joint Stip. at 9, 20, 35, 39, 43) or not proportional (see, e.g., id. at 17, 29, 35, 39, 44). Plaintiff responds that these objections are inappropriate given the value of this case, Defendant's access to the bulk of possibly relevant information, and Defendant's size and financial success. (See id. at 41–44). Defendant responds by arguing that, because Bactrim is over 50 years old, many of Plaintiff's discovery requests require significant and somehow incalculable labor efforts. (See id. at 44–45). A party's wealth and size alone are not a sufficient basis to unilaterally overrule its objections based on burden and proportion. The Court, however, recognizes a more fundamental issue with Defendant's objections flagged by Plaintiff. When responding to request for documents, electronically stored information, and other tangible items, a party “must either state that inspection ... will be permitted ... or state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, including the reasons.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B) (emphasis added). “Indeed, boilerplate assertions of any type are improper in federal court.” Tubio v. Adidas Am. Inc., No. CV 22-6424 GW (PVCx), 2023 WL 9420334, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2023). “[G]eneral or boilerplate objections such as ‘overly burdensome and harassing’ are improper—especially when a party fails to submit any evidentiary declarations supporting such objections.” A. Farber & Partners, Inc. v. Garber, 234 F.R.D. 186, 188 (C.D. Cal. 2006). The objections Plaintiff highlights here lack supporting evidentiary declarations. Moreover, and more concerning, is the fact that they largely lack any individualized explanation. The specify and individualized reasons Rule 34 requires are missing. As discussed in some sections below, Defendant's burdensome and proportionality objections are OVERRULED to the extent that they are boilerplate. F. Defendant Shall Either Produce a Detailed Privilege Log or Provide a Discovery Response Explaining that No Privileged Material Is Being Withheld. *7 Defendant has repeatedly responded to Plaintiff's discovery requests with generalized claims of privilege. (See, e.g., Joint Stip. at 45 (Sun “objects to all requests to the extent they seek production of documents shielded by the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, HIPPA or similar privacy measures, or any other applicable privilege or limitation on the scope of discovery.” (emphasis added)). Plaintiff contends this language is too vague and requests a privilege log. (Id. at 45–46). Defendant now explains that it has not withheld any documents on the basis of privilege. (Id. at 48). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(ii) requires a party who withholds responsive information on the basis of a privilege to “describe the nature of the documents, communications, or tangible things not produced or disclosed—and do so in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties to assess the claim.” “The most common way to [satisfy this obligation] is with a privilege log.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 306 F.R.D. 234, 237 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Accordingly, Plaintiff shall either produce a detailed privilege log—or some other sufficient communication—describing the privileged materials it previously flagged (see, e.g., Joint Stip. at 45) or provide a formal discovery response memorializing its current position that it has not withheld any responsive information on the basis of a privilege (id. at 48. G. Defendant Shall Provide the Last Known Addresses for Individuals Responsible for Bactrim Safety. In seven different interrogatories, Plaintiff has asked Defendant to provide current and former employees who were, in general terms, responsible for Bactrim safety. (Id. at 48–56). Defendant objected on numerous boilerplate grounds to these interrogatories and did not provide individual names in its responses to the interrogatories. (See id.). Defendant counters, though, that it has identified 49 current or former employees responsive to those interrogatories, albeit in different discovery materials. (See id at 57–59). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A)(i) requires the disclosure of “the name and, if known, the address and telephone number of each individual likely to have discoverable information—along with the subjects of that information—that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment.” Defendant has yet to provide any names or addresses for the disclosed individuals. Defendant is ordered to provide current or, at the very least, last known addresses and phone numbers for the disclosed individuals to comply with Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(i). H. Specific Requests for Production 1. Request for Production 1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 1: The results, reports and analysis of Your pharmacovigilance assessments or safety studies, both internal and external, involving Serious Skin Reactions or SCAR events (including SJS and TEN) regarding Bactrim (sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim), whether conducted for U.S. or worldwide safety purposes. (Joint Stip. at 60). Defendant objects on the grounds that the request is vague and covers an unlimited time period. (Id. at 60–63). Defendant also argues it has already complied by providing responsive FDA materials to Plaintiff. (Id.). Defendant's reports to the FDA are not responsive. Plaintiff requested internal and external safety studies regarding SCAR events for Bactrim. This request is clear. Finally, Plaintiff's request is not temporally limited. Plaintiff's request should be interpreted as seeking responsive information as far back as 2004, when Defendant purchased Bactrim. (Id. at 6). If Plaintiff finds a compelling reason to discover documents prior to this date, he shall file a succinct motion to compel further discovery with reasonable time to obtain relief before the discovery cut-off. No informal discovery conference will be necessary. The Court will rule promptly. If Defendant does not have responsive materials, Defendant should inform Plaintiff of that fact in a formal discovery response rather than objecting to production. This temporal rule applies to all other requests for production to which Defendant has objected on this issue. Otherwise, Defendant's objections are OVERRULED. 2. Request for Production 3 *8 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 3: Complete adverse event files (including adverse event reports, source documents, emails, medical records, correspondence) for adverse events for Serious Skin Reactions or SCAR events (including SJS and TEN) relating to Bactrim (sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim), including but not limited to the clinical trials. Plaintiff specifically requests complete copies of adverse event reports with all fields included. (Id. at 63). Defendant argues it has complied with this request by supplying reports provided to the FDA. (Id. at 65). It also argues responses should be narrowed to SJS and TEN materials. The Court adopts its reasoning above. Plaintiff requests materials broader than just the reports provided to the FDA. Moreover, discovery is not limited to strictly SJS and TEN materials. Defendant's objections are OVERRULED. 3. Request for Production 4, 5, and 15 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 4: CIOMS, MedWatch and spontaneous reporting forms (in all versions and with all supporting attachments) referencing Serious Skin Reactions or SCAR events (including SJS and TEN) and Bactrim (sulfamethoxazoletrimethoprim) on a global basis. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 5: Summaries, analysis or aggregate interpretations of adverse reaction report(s) regarding Bactrim (sulfamethoxazoletrimethoprim), including but not limited to Safety Signal detection reports, disproportionality reports, PSURs, EudraVigilance Submissions, PRBERs or E2C(R2) Periodic Benefit-Risk Evaluation Reports, both domestic and foreign. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 15: Documents reflecting warnings, objections or criticisms by any foreign regulatory authority concerning Your Premarketing or Postmarketing activities, including but not limited to: labeling, marketing, advertising, promotion, manufacturing or distribution of Bactrim (sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim) Products on a global basis. (Id. at 66–67). Defendant objects to these requests for production on the grounds that they request foreign regulatory discovery materials and that they request information concerning adverse events other than SJS and TEN. (Id. at 69). The Court has previously addressed these objections. (See supra Parts V.B & V.D) Defendant's objections are OVERRULED. 4. Request For Production 17 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 17: Information provided to consumers upon purchase of any Bactrim (sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim) Products, including but not limited to, medication guides; patient information leaflets (PILS); consumer leaflets providing instructions or warnings included within the packaging; and the drafts of the documents on a global basis. To be complete, Your response must include the English translations. (Id. at 69). Defendant objects on numerous grounds including relevancy, equal availability, unlimited temporal scope, requests for foreign materials, and an inappropriate request to create new items by translating foreign materials and undue burden. (Id. at 69–71). “[T]o the extent defendant objects that certain requests ... seek information equally available to plaintiff, ‘courts have unambiguously stated that this exact objection is insufficient to resist a discovery request.’ ” Nat'l Acad. of Recording Arts & Scis., Inc. v. On Point Events, LP, 256 F.R.D. 678, 682 (C.D. Cal. 2009). Defendant's objections based on equal accessibility here and elsewhere are OVERRULED. This information is relevant in that it sheds light on any possible Bactrim side effects Defendant knew about. It also provides information on how Defendant warned about those risks. The Court has already ruled on temporal scope and foreign regulatory materials. (See supra Parts V.H.1 & V.B). *9 Defendant's objection to the need for translating materials is SUSTAINED. Defendant will provide any already existing translated versions of discoverable material. Otherwise, Defendant shall provide foreign language originals. 5. Request for Production 20 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 20: With respect to each change or proposed change in the labeling of Bactrim (sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim), produce all documents reflecting or relating to the justification for the domestic and foreign label change(s), including but not limited to documents provided to or received from any Safety or Labeling Committee, whether domestic or foreign. (Id. at 71). Defendant objects based on public availability, relevance, overbreadth, and unlimited in temporal scope. The Court has already ruled on public availability and temporal scope. (See supra Parts V.H.4 &V.H.1). As already explained, Defendant's knowledge about and reaction to known risks of Bactrim other than SJS and TEN are relevant. Defendants remaining objections are OVERRULED. 6. Request for Production 38 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 38: All Investigational New Drug Applications (INDs), New Drug Applications (NDAs), Supplemental (SNDAs), Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) for any Bactrim (sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim). (Id. at 92). Defendant raises numerous general objections previously discussed in this order. Those objections are OVERRULED. Defendant objects that this information is overbroad and irrelevant. (Id. at 94). The release of this information is relevant in that it will help Plaintiff understand what information Defendant provided the FDA through the years regarding Bactrim's safety. It is also relevant to any claim of federal preemption by Defendant. (Dkt. No. 46 at 8). Though the entirety of the files may be voluminous, Defendant has not articulated the burden or the specifics of why such information is disproportionate. To the extent Defendant “has not been able to locate any documents from the NDA predating Mutual's acquisition of NDA” (id. at 94), Defendant should provide that information to Plaintiff in a formal discovery response rather than raising objections related to those documents. Defendant's objections are OVERRULED. 7. Requests for Production 22, 32, 35, 46, and 47 The Court omits the text of these requests for the sake of brevity. Though grouped together, these requests for production cover a broad variety of materials including communications with foreign regulators regarding SCAR events and Bactrim (Joint Stip. at 74), internal meeting information regarding the drug and its risks (id. at 74–75), safety reports generated by Defendant or its affiliates analyzing SCAR events associated with Bactrim (id. at 75), and Defendant's organizational charts (Id. at 76). Defendant raises numerous general objections that the Court has already addressed. Regarding Defendant's claim that it does not routinely prepare organizational charts, Defendant shall not be required to create charts from scratch. 8. Request for Production 48 and 49 Request for Production 48 organizational charts for seven teams or committees including Defendant's Labeling Committee, Safety Review Committee, and Executive Committee. (Id. at 77–78). Request for Production 49 also seek materials prepared for eleven committees concerning Bactrim including PowerPoint presentations, agendas, etc. (Id. at 79). *10 The Court finds this information relevant. Defendant is not required to create organizational charts. However, to the extent Defendant has not done so already, Defendant shall provide the names and appropriate contact information for the members of the teams listed in Request for Production 48. Likewise, Defendant shall produce documents sought in Request for Production 49 if it has not already done so. Defendant's objections are OVERRULED. 9. Request for Production 51 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 51: Documents reflecting searches of and the search protocols for Your repository of scientific literature for Bactrim (sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim) Products and Serious Skin Reactions or SCAR events (including SJS and TEN). (Id. at 82). Defendant contends that the materials it has provided are sufficient to satisfy Rule 34. (Id. at 82–83). If Defendant has provided sufficient documents, it shall inform Plaintiff of this fact in a formal discovery response. To the extent Defendant objects to this request, those objections are OVERRULED. 10. Request for Production 55 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 55: Documents reflecting that You studied, reviewed or analyzed (or provided funding for any analysis of) the risks of Serious Skin Reactions and SCAR events, including SJS and TEN related to Bactrim (sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim). (Id. at 83). Defendant objects that the term “reflecting” is vague and then raises general objections to the degree to which this request seeks foreign regulatory material and seeks information of adverse events other than SJS and TEN. (Id. at 84). The Court has addressed the latter two objections. They are OVERRULED. This request for production is not vague. The request elicits documents that show Defendant undertook the review described above. To the extent Defendant has already provided these materials or has no documents that meet this standard, Defendant should say so and move on. 11. Request for Production 58 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 58: The scientific literature in Defendant's possession relating to Serious Skin Reactions and SCAR events, including SJS and TEN for Bactrim (sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim) Products. (Id. at 85). The parties incorporate their arguments for Requests for Production 51 and 55 here. As explained in those sections, Defendant's objections are OVERRULED. If Defendant believes it has produced all responsive records, it shall inform Plaintiff of this fact in a formal discovery response. 12. Request for Production 60 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 60: Documents and communications that reference, reflect or express concern regarding populations with increased risks of Serious Skin Reactions and SCAR events, including SJS and TEN associated with Bactrim (sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim). (Id. at 86). Defendant objects on the grounds that this request is vague (by failing to define the populations to which it applies), is overbroad in that it seeks potential subpopulations to which Plaintiff does not belong, seeks foreign regulatory discovery, and seeks adverse events other than SJS and TEN. (Id. at 87). The term “populations” is not vague. Plaintiff specifically seeks information concerning “populations with increased risks of Serious Skin Reactions and SCAR events.” (Id. at 86 (emphasis added)). Information regarding subpopulations to which Plaintiff did not belong is still relevant in that it may lead to the discovery of information regarding how Defendant generally chose to warn or not warn of risks to specific populations like those to which Plaintiff belonged. The remaining objections have been previously addressed. (See Parts V.B & V.D). Defendants objections are OVERRULED. *11 To the extent Defendant believes it has fully responded to this request for production, it should inform Plaintiff in a formal discovery response. 13. Request for Production 61 and 62 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 61: Documents and communications that relate to pharmacogenetic analyses performed by Defendant or their consultants, researchers, or agents into the determination of risks of Serious Skin Reactions and SCAR events, including SJS and TEN from Bactrim (sulfamethoxazoletrimethoprim). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 62: Draft and final Structured Medical Queries (SMQs) or MedDRA terms used for data searches for Serious Skin Reactions and SCAR events, including SJS and TEN associated with Bactrim (sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim) and the associated reports that went with the SMQs. (Id. at 88–89). The parties incorporate their arguments for Requests for Production 51 and 55 here. (Joint Stip. at 90). As explained in those sections, Defendant's objections are OVERRULED. If Defendant believes it has produced all responsive records, it shall inform Plaintiff of this fact in a formal discovery response. 14. Requests for Production 70 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 70: Documents and communications reflecting any analysis of, or consideration Defendant provided to changing, altering or otherwise modifying the Bactrim (sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim) label with regard to Serious Skin Reactions and SCAR events, including SJS and TEN. (Id. at 90). The parties incorporate their arguments for Requests for Production 51 and 55 here. (Id. at 91). As explained in those sections, Defendant's objections are OVERRULED. If Defendant believes it has produced all responsive records, it shall inform Plaintiff of this fact in a formal discovery response. 15. Request for Production 72 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 72: Communications and documents exchanged between Defendant (to include Defendant's legal counsel and consultants) and the FDA regarding Bactrim (sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim) and Serious Skin Reactions and SCAR events, including SJS and TEN, including but not limited to correspondence, teleconference memos, call sheets, and contact forms. (Id. at 91). The objections Defendant raises to this request for production are addressed previously in this order. The information Plaintiff requests is relevant to his case. Defendant has failed to articulate a specific burden this request imposes. Defendant's objections are OVERRULED. Defendant is ordered to provide responsive documents or indicate that none exist. I. Defendant Shall Submit Amended Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Admissions Without Objections. 1. Defendant's General Objections a. Objection 1 Defendant “objects to the Discovery to the extent it seeks production of information shielded by the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, HIPAA or similar privacy measures, or any other applicable privilege or limitation on the scope of discovery. [Defendant] further objects to the Discovery insofar as it seeks to impose an independent reporting obligation on the part of [Defendant's] counsel.” (Joint Stip. at 95). To the extent any of Plaintiff's requests for admission seek privileged, work-product, or any other confidential information protected by the rules of discovery, Defendant is rightly entitled to withhold that information and update the privilege log accordingly. In general terms, the Court SUSTAINS this objection. b. Objection 2 *12 Defendant “objects to the Discovery as irrelevant, unduly burdensome, and overly broad to the extent it seeks information relating to foreign regulatory submissions, labeling, or otherwise pertains to sales, marketing, or regulatory activities occurring outside of the United States.” (Joint Stip. at 95). Per the analysis above (see supra Part V.B), foreign materials are discoverable. This objection is OVERRULED. c. Objection 3 Defendant “objects to the Discovery as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent Plaintiff demands production of information in the public domain, equally accessible to Plaintiff.” (Joint Stip. at 95). “[T]o the extent defendant objects that certain requests ... seek information equally available to plaintiff, ‘courts have unambiguously stated that this exact objection is insufficient to resist a discovery request.’ ” Nat'l Acad. of Recording Arts & Scis., Inc. v. On Point Events, LP, 256 F.R.D. 678, 682 (C.D. Cal. 2009). This objection is OVERRULED. d. Objection 4 Defendant “objects to the Discovery to the extent it demands production of confidential, proprietary, trade secret, or other commercially sensitive information.” (Joint Stip. at 95). While Rule 26 provides some protections for trade secrets, “there is no absolute privilege for highly confidential information.” Nat'l Acad. of Recording Arts & Scis., Inc. v. On Point Events, LP, 256 F.R.D. 678, 681 (C.D. Cal. 2009). Where trade secrets are concerned: [C]ourts have attempted to reconcile the competing interests in trade secret discovery disputes. First, the party opposing discovery must show that the information is a ‘trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information’ under Rule 26[ ], and that its disclosure would be harmful to the party's interest in the property. The burden then shifts to the party seeking discovery to show that the information is relevant to the subject matter of the lawsuit and is necessary to prepare the case for trial. [¶] If the party seeking discovery shows both relevance and need, the court must weigh the injury that disclosure might cause to the property against the moving party's need for the information. If the party seeking discovery fails to show both the relevance of the requested information and the need for the material in developing its case, there is no reason for the discovery request to be granted, and the trade secrets are not to be revealed. Id. (quoting In re Remington Arms Co., Inc., 952 F.2d 1029, 1032 (1994)). Here, Defendant has failed to make this initial showing. Rather, Defendant presents a generalized objection and gives no supporting affidavit explaining the need for confidentiality. This is especially concerning where the Court has already issued a protective order. (Dkt. No. 48). Defendant has failed to explain why this measure is ineffective for the purposes of confidentiality. This objection is OVERRULED. e. Objection 5 Defendant “objects to the Discovery to the extent it demands production of information in the possession, custody, or control of non-parties. [Defendant] will take reasonable steps to local relevant and responsive documents within its possession, custody, or control.” (Joint Stip. at 96). Responses to requests for admission do not require a party to locate or produce documents. To the extent Defendant raises this objection to Plaintiff's requests for admission, it is OVERRULED. f. Objection 6 *13 Defendant “objects to the production of information collected or prepared as part of [Defendant's] pharmacovigilance and pharmaco-surveillance efforts—other than those specifically pertaining to Decedent's alleged reaction to sulfamethoxazole and trimethoprim—as irrelevant, unduly burdensome, disproportionate to the needs of the case.” (Id. at 96). Responses to requests for admission do not require a party to produce documents. To the extent Defendant raises this objection to Plaintiff's requests for admission, it is OVERRULED. g. Objection 7 Defendant “objects to the Discovery to the extent it seeks documents pertaining to adverse reactions to Bactrim other than those allegedly experienced by Decedent (i.e., SJS and TEN) on the basis that such requests are irrelevant, unduly burdensome, overly broad, and disproportionate to the needs of the case.” (Id. at 96–97). Responses to requests for admission do not require a party to produce documents. To the extent Defendant raises this objection to Plaintiff's requests for admission, it is OVERRULED. h. Objection 8 Defendant “objects to the Discovery to the extent it seeks information concerning medications other than the reference-listed drug (‘RLD’) for the generic sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim Decedent allegedly used, which [Defendant] understand to be Bactrim approved by FDA via NDA No. 017377.” (Id. at 97). The Court has already explained that such discovery is relevant and that Defendant's general breadth and proportionality objections are boilerplate. To the extent this objection applies to document production, such a concern is not relevant when reviewing requests for admission. Defendant's objection is OVERRULED. 2. Example Request for Admission Plaintiff requests: 1. Admit Defendants have a duty as the NDA holder of the Bactrim NDA(s) to provide to the FDA the below scientific publication listed as “A.” 2. Admit the below scientific publication listed as “A” was never provided to the FDA by Defendants in reference to the Bactrim NDA(s). 3. Admit Defendants have no evidence the below scientific publication listed as “A” was ever provided to the FDA in reference to the Bactrim NDA(s). A. Lyell A. A review of toxic epidermal necrolysis in Britain. Br J Dermatol. 1967;79:662-671. (Joint Stip. at 97). Defendant objects to Plaintiff's requests for admission arguing that many require improper legal conclusions. (Id. at 100–02). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(1)(A) provides that a request for admission must relate to “facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either.” “Requests for purely legal conclusions, however, are generally not permitted.” Benson Tower Condo. Owners Ass'n v. Victaulic Co., 105 F. Supp. 3d 1184, 1195 (D. Or. 2015), aff'd, 702 F. App'x 537 (9th Cir. 2017). Though this rule exists, “the distinction between the application of law to fact and a legal conclusion is ‘not always easy to draw.’ ” In re NCAA Student–Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litig., 2012 WL 4743121, at *2 (N.D.Cal. Oct. 3, 2012) (citing Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 2012 WL 952254, at *3 (N.D.Cal. Mar. 20, 2012)) Plaintiff's inquiry in the above request for admission is sufficiently fact-specific. He asks Defendant not whether it had a generalized legal duty to provide materials to the FDA. Instead, he references a specific publication and asks Defendant to admit whether it was obliged to provide that publication to the FDA. Accordingly, Defendant's objection is OVERRULED. Defendant's objection is only appropriate in instances where Plaintiff requests admission of a general legal question. J. Defendant Shall Answer Plaintiff's Jurisdictional Discovery Requests as They Relate to Bactrim and Its Generic Equivalents for a Defined Ten-Year Window. *14 The Court has already ruled that Plaintiff pleaded sufficient facts to establish specific jurisdiction. (See Dkt. No. 43). Nonetheless, Defendant intends to challenge jurisdiction in a future summary judgment motion. With that knowledge, Plaintiff has requested materials he sees as relevant to this jurisdictional dispute. Defendant has either objected or not responded to several of these requests. 1. Plaintiff's Jurisdictional Requests for Production Are Largely Appropriate. Except as Flagged, Defendant Shall Provide Responses to These Requests that Are Related to Bactrim and Its Generic Equivalents. Plaintiff identifies thirty-three specific jurisdictional requests for production to which Defendant has either objected or not responded. (Joint Stip. at 102). For example, Plaintiff requests “Documents between Defendant and any distributor, wholesaler, or dealer of Defendant's products (including Bactrim) referencing the delivery of products, purchasing of products, advertising of products, marketing of products, indemnity or warranty of claims, or distribution of products in California.” (Id. at 111 (Request for Production No. 1)). Another example: Plaintiff requests, “Documents, correspondence, and communications that reference the distribution of Defendant's products (including Bactrim) in California.” (Id. at 112 (Request for Production No. 2)). Defendant's general objections are largely boilerplate. (See id. at 109–10). More specifically, Defendant argues that information concerning sales and conduct outside California and unrelated to Bactrim is irrelevant. (Id. at 109–10). Defendant also objects on the ground that Plaintiff does not claim to have been injured by one of Defendant's products. (Id. at 110). Instead, the claimed injury stems from labeling decisions made outside of California. (Id.). Accordingly, Defendant argues that discovery related to its marketing activities in California are irrelevant, burdensome, and disproportionate. (Id.). To better analyze these jurisdictional requests for production, it is helpful to sort them into three categories. The first category includes requests for production that are already limited to Bactrim and its generic counterpart. For example, Request for Production No. 20: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: Documents reflecting the number of prescriptions and gross sales amounts of Defendant's Bactrim sales in California by year. (Id. at 118). Also included in this category are Requests for Production Nos. 21, 31, 37, 39, 43, 44, 50, 51, 52, and 56. (See id. at 111–33). The second category includes requests for production that seek documents related to all of Defendant's products in California. For example, Request for Production No. 1: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Documents between Defendant and any distributor, wholesaler, or dealer of Defendant's products (including Bactrim) referencing the delivery of products, purchasing of products, advertising of products, marketing of products, indemnity or warranty of claims, or distribution of products in California. (Id. at 111). Also included in this category are Requests for Production Nos. 2, 6, 9, 10, 19, 22, 24, 25, and 40. (See id. at 112–26). Finally, the third category includes requests for production that seek documents that would be difficult to tie directly to Bactrim or any specific drug that Defendant produces. For example, Request for Production No. 3: *15 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Indemnity agreements between Defendant and its California distributors or wholesalers. (Id. at 112). Also included in this category are Requests for Production Nos. 5, 12, 13, 18, 23, 26, 36, 43, 53, 55, and 59. (Id. at 113–33). To the extent the jurisdictional requests for production seek information unrelated to Bactrim or its generic equivalent, the Court largely agrees with Defendant. Those contacts are unrelated to the Court's specific jurisdiction analysis, which focused on Defendant's efforts to market Bactrim in California. (See Dkt. No. 43 at 8–9). Accordingly, the requests for production in the second category above shall be limited to documents related to Bactrim and its generic counterpart. Requests for production in the third category above are valid and should be produced, as narrowing them to Bactrim-related contacts would be difficult. As the requests for production in the first category above are already limited to Bactrim and its generic counterpart, they are permissible. The Court OVERRULES Defendant's geographic objection. The requests for production that are not limited to California are done so appropriately. For example, Request for Production No. 43—“A copy of the Trademark Assignment for Transferred Product Specific Marks for Bactrim.” (id. at 127)—could not be limited only in as much as it relates to California. The Court additionally OVERRULES Defendant's general objection premised on the belief that only information pertaining to Defendant's labeling decisions is discoverable for purposes of the ongoing jurisdictional dispute. Defendant either forgets or ignores the Court's prior order denying Defendant's motion to dismiss on jurisdiction. There, the Court expressly held that activities outside the labeling process were relevant to the jurisdictional dispute. (Dkt. No. 43 at 8–9). In fact, it specifically held that Defendant's “sales and marketing practices” were “jurisdictionally relevant.” (Id. at 11). Summarizing the relevant allegations, the Court said: [Plaintiff] alleges that Sun Pharma marketed brandname Bactrim in California and transmitted substantial (false) information about brand-name Bactrim to doctors in California. It was in reliance upon this allegedly false information about brandname Bactrim—directed by Sun Pharma at the California market through the brand-name label, Sun Pharma's online websites and information, presentations to the hospital, continuing medical education conferences, and written materials provided by Sun Pharma to various physician groups and hospitals—that Juanita Leon's doctor prescribed her brand-name Bactrim. (Id. at 9). The Court continued: “And to the extent that Sun Pharma's sales and marketing of Bactrim relied on its deficient labeling, which presumably it did, this is clearly also related to a cause of action regarding the deficient labeling no matter where the actual labeling happened.” (Id. at 9). Defendant is of course entitled to fight this jurisdictional dispute as far as the rules allow it to. What Defendant may not do is continue that battle and then simultaneously hamper the free flow of relevant information that will help resolve that very issue. Except as limited by other portions of this order, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel answers to the jurisdictional requests for production is GRANTED. 2. Relevant Jurisdictional Information from 2012 through 2021 Is Discoverable. *16 The parties disagree on the timeframe of discoverable jurisdictional material. Plaintiff initially proposed a fourteen-year time period. (Joint Stip. at 106). Defendant countered that a three-year period preceding Plaintiff's death was better. (Id. at 107–08). In the spirit of compromise, Defendant came up to a five-year period and Plaintiff came down to a ten-year period. (Id. at 106 & 108). The Court exercises “ ‘broad discretion’ to permit or deny jurisdictional discovery.” Gillespie v. Prestige Royal Liquors Corp., 183 F. Supp. 3d 996, 1001 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (citing Butcher's Union Local No. 498 v. SDC Investment, Inc., 788 F.2d 535, 540 (9th Cir. 1986)). Here, Defendant repeatedly emphasizes the length of Bactrim's existence and the fact that it has sold Bactrim in California. Accordingly, the Court believes a ten-year period is appropriate to understand Defendant's efforts to ensure Bactrim's availability and continued consumption in the state. Limiting the time period to three or five years would unfairly handicap Plaintiff. Observing that the Court previously considered alleged payments Defendant made to California physicians and medical professionals in 2021 in its jurisdictional analysis (see Dkt. No. 43 at 8), this ten-year period will start in 2021 and go back. Accordingly, Defendant's timeliness objections are OVERRULED. Defendant shall provide responsive jurisdictional discovery documents from 2012 through 2021. VI. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. No later than June 2, 2025, Defendant shall serve verified, amended responses to the Requests for Production (RFPs), Requests for Admission (RFAs), and Interrogatories, removing all objections, producing all responsive information (not already produced), affirmatively confirming that no responsive information has been withheld, and producing a privilege log, if applicable. Regarding the supplemental responses related to discovery issues arising from discovery issues not related to the instant Motion to Compel, the Court strongly encourages Defendant to serve supplemental responses immediately. Footnotes [1] For ease of reference, the Court refers to the blue CM/ECF-generated pagination on the Court's docket. [2] The two entities have merged, effectively leaving Sun Pharma as the only remaining defendant. (Dkt. No. 22-1 at 12 n.4). [3] For this portion of the procedural background, the Court has adopted a slightly edited version of the Court's prior description of these events in its Order Denying Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss. (See Dkt. No. 43 at 3). [4] The Court additionally held that, “to the extent that Sun Pharma's sales and marketing of Bactrim relied on its deficient labeling, which presumably it did, this is clearly also related to a cause of action regarding the deficient labeling no matter where the actual labeling happened.” (Dkt. No. 43 at 9). [5] Defendant cites Burton for the proposition that another court has denied a motion to compel requests for production where the plaintiff did not allege injuries other than SJS and TEN. (See Joint Stip. at 39). Defendant conveniently ignores language it cites in its own brief. The Burton court explicitly rejected these requests for production because the plaintiff “ma[de] no argument why conditions she [did] not have [were] relevant to her case.” 2023 WL 4677028, at *6. Plaintiff here has sufficiently explained the relevancy of the SCAR search terms.