Burge et al v. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
DENA BURGE, LEIGH HOCKETT,
JORDAN FURLAN, CRISTINE RIDEY,
PATRICIA SAWCZUK, and ANNE
ARUNDEL COUNTY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS
INDUSTRIES, LTD., TEVA
PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., TEVA
PARENTERAL MEDICINES, INC., TEVA
NEUROSCIENCE, INC., TEVA SALES &
MARKETING, INC., and CEPHALON,
INC.,
Defendants.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Miscellaneous Action No. 25-mc-91527-ADB
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
BURROUGHS, D.J.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Teva Parenteral
Medicines, Inc., Teva Neuroscience, Inc., Teva Sales & Marketing, Inc., and Cephalon, Inc.
(collectively, “Defendants” or “Teva”), Defendants in Burge v. Teva Pharm. Indus., Ltd., No.
22-cv-02501 (D. Kan. filed Dec. 2, 2022) (the underlying action), and non-party attorney
Christopher T. Holding filed a motion to quash the subpoena for the deposition of Mr. Holding
(the “Motion to Quash”) on November 10, 2025. [ECF No. 1]. Subsequently, on November 14,
2025, Dena Burge, Leigh Hockett, Jordan Furlan, Cristine Ridey, Patricia Sawczuk, and Anne
Case 2:26-mc-00201-DDC-TJJ Document 38 Filed 01/06/26 Page 1 of 6

2
Arundel County, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs in the
underlying action (collectively “Plaintiffs”), moved to transfer the Motion to Quash to the
issuing court, the District of Kansas (the “Motion to Transfer”). [ECF No. 18]. Plaintiffs
contend that the transfer of venue should be allowed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(f)
due to exceptional circumstances. See generally [ECF No. 19]. On November 28, 2025,
Defendants and Mr. Holding filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer, [ECF No. 31],
and Plaintiffs replied on December 8, 2025, [ECF No. 37]. For the reasons that follow,
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Transfer is GRANTED.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs filed the underlying action in the United States District Court for the District of
Kansas on December 2, 2022, and the case was assigned to District Judge Crabtree and
Magistrate Judge James. [ECF No. 19 at 7]. Plaintiffs allege that in settling two patent lawsuits,
Teva, Mylan Inc. (“Mylan”), and Mylan’s business partner, Pfizer Inc. (“Pfizer”), entered a
“trade-for-delay” agreement where Teva agreed to delay its entry into the generic EpiPen market
in exchange for Mylan/Pfizer’s delayed entry into the generic market for Teva’s drug, Nuvigil.
[Id. at 5–6]. Plaintiffs assert that these agreements “unlawfully extended both companies’
monopolies,” which inflated drug prices, and that Defendants hid the connection between the
two settlements. [Id. at 6]. Teva moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint, “arguing, among other
things, that the statute of limitations barred Plaintiffs’ antitrust claims.” [Id. at 7]. Judge
Crabtree held that Plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged that the statute of limitations should be
tolled and bifurcated discovery, with Phase I limited to statute of limitation issues, including
tolling, the discovery rule, and fraudulent concealment. [Id.]. Plaintiffs allege that Goodwin
Procter attorneys who represented Teva, including Mr. Holding, were involved with drafting the
Case 2:26-mc-00201-DDC-TJJ Document 38 Filed 01/06/26 Page 2 of 6

3
reciprocal settlements, reviewing public statements and press releases, and communicating with
regulators, and therefore played a role in Teva’s efforts to conceal the trade-for-delay scheme.
[Id. at 6]; see [ECF No. 29 at 5–7].
In July 2024, Plaintiffs served their initial Phase I discovery requests on Defendants,
including a request for communications between regulators and Goodwin Procter attorneys.
[ECF No. 19 at 8]. In April 2025, Plaintiffs moved to compel production of certain documents
from Teva’s privilege log, arguing that they fell within the crime-fraud exception. [Id.]. In July
2025, Magistrate Judge James found that “Plaintiffs had made a prima facie showing of
fraudulent concealment.” [Id.]. Magistrate Judge James then conducted an in camera review of
46 documents, and on October 7, 2025 ordered Teva to produce 30 unredacted documents,
finding that they were probative of Plaintiffs’ allegations that Defendants and their attorneys had
engaged in fraudulent concealment. [Id. at 8–9]. Teva filed objections to Magistrate Judge
James’ finding, and those objections remain pending before District Judge Crabtree. [Id. at 9].
Plaintiffs have also issued a document subpoena to Goodwin Procter and filed an
associated motion to compel (the “Motion to Compel”) which remains pending in the Central
District of California and raises similar privilege-related issues. [ECF No. 37 at 10]; Burge v.
Teva Pharm. Indus., Ltd., No. 25-mc-00121 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025).
II. 	MOTION TO TRANSFER
A. 	Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(1) provides that the place of compliance for a
subpoena commanding a person to attend a deposition is “within 100 miles of where the person
resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person.” Under Rule 45(d)(3), motions to
quash, like other subpoena-related motions, “are to be filed in the district court where
Case 2:26-mc-00201-DDC-TJJ Document 38 Filed 01/06/26 Page 3 of 6

4
compliance is required.” Gebka v. EverQuote, Inc., No. 21-mc-91391, 2021 WL 3131549, at *1
(D. Mass. July 23, 2021). Rule 45(f) permits the transfer of subpoena-related motions to the
issuing court only “if the person subject to the subpoena consents or if the court finds exceptional
circumstances.” The Advisory Committee Note for Rule 45 states:
In the absence of consent, the court may transfer in exceptional circumstances, and
the proponent of transfer bears the burden of showing that such circumstances are
present. The prime concern should be avoiding burdens on local nonparties subject
to subpoenas, and it should not be assumed that the issuing court is in a superior
position to resolve subpoena-related motions. 	In some circumstances, however,
transfer may be warranted in order to avoid disrupting the issuing court's
management of the underlying litigation, as when that court has already ruled on
issues presented by the motion or the same issues are likely to arise in discovery in
many districts. Transfer is appropriate only if such interests outweigh the interests
of the nonparty served with the subpoena in obtaining local resolution of the
motion.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 advisory committee’s note to 2013 amendment, subdiv. (f).
B. 	Discussion
Mr. Holding resides and is licensed to practice law in Massachusetts. [ECF No. 31 at
15]. Accordingly, compliance with his deposition subpoena and the associated subpoena-related
motion practice would take place in this district unless Mr. Holding has consented to transfer or
Plaintiffs demonstrate that exceptional circumstances exist. See Gebka, 2021 WL 3131549, at
*2.
Mr. Holding does not consent to transfer of the Motion to Quash to the court of issuance.
[ECF No. 31 at 9]. Plaintiffs contend, however, that the following interests constitute
exceptional circumstances that weigh in favor of transfer: (1) the issuing court’s familiarity with
the underlying action and how the issues in the underlying action relate to the Motion to Quash;
(2) the potential for inconsistent rulings and the resulting impact on the issuing court’s ongoing
discovery management; and (3) judicial efficiency and economy. [ECF No. 19 at 12–16].
Case 2:26-mc-00201-DDC-TJJ Document 38 Filed 01/06/26 Page 4 of 6

5
Plaintiffs further assert that transferring the Motion to Quash will not unduly burden Mr.
Holding. [Id. at 16–17].
The Court begins with the potential for inconsistent rulings and the possible impact on
the issuing court’s ongoing discovery management. The issuing court has been managing Phase
I discovery in the underlying matter for over a year and a half, including conducting in camera
review of documents relevant to issues that are central to multiple ongoing discovery disputes
such as Defendants’ and Mr. Holding’s Motion to Quash, Defendants’ objections to Magistrate
Judge James’ order compelling the production of certain documents from Teva’s privilege log,
and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel in the Central District of California. The same privilege and
crime-fraud issues underlie each of these discovery disputes, and transfer of the Motion to Quash
to the issuing court would prevent conflicting resolutions of these motions and promote coherent
management of the bifurcated discovery process in the underlying matter.
Further, while familiarity with the underlying matter does not in and of itself justify a
transfer, see Gebka, 2021 WL 3131549, at * 3 (citing Isola USA Corp. v. Taiwan Union Tech.
Corp., No. 15-mc-94003, 2015 WL 5934760, at *3 (D. Mass. June 18, 2015)), “it is a compelling
factor in ‘highly complex’ cases where the issuing court is aware of ‘the full scope of issues
involved as well as any implications the resolution of the motion will have on the underlying
litigation,’” In re Nat’l Prescription Opiate Litig., No. 23-mc-00945, 2023 WL 5659047, at *3
(W.D. Tex. Aug. 30, 2023) (quoting In re Niaspan Antitrust Litig., No. 15-cv-01209, 2015 WL
3407543, at *1 (D. Md. May 26, 2015)). Resolving the Motion to Quash would require this
Court to develop an understanding of multiple complex procedural and substantive issues in the
underlying antitrust class action, including the regulatory history of Defendants’ generic-drug
approvals, the Plaintiffs’ conspiracy and fraudulent concealment allegations, and the existing
Case 2:26-mc-00201-DDC-TJJ Document 38 Filed 01/06/26 Page 5 of 6

6
privilege rulings. Judge Crabtree and Magistrate Judge James have examined these issues over
the course of the past three years in the current matter, as well as during the predecessor
litigation involving Mylan and Pfizer, see [ECF No. 37 at 5], and are best positioned to resolve
the Motion to Quash. Centralization of the multiple discovery decisions in one forum will also
promote judicial efficiency and economy by preventing redundant motion practice and the
review of sealed materials in three different courts.
Considering that Mr. Holding is actively litigating the underlying matter in the District of
Kansas, and has been admitted pro hac vice in that district, [ECF No. 37 at 13], and given the
possibility of conducting hearings remotely as needed, any burden that would be placed on Mr.
Holding by disputing the subpoena in the District of Kansas would be slight and is outweighed
by the exceptional circumstances discussed supra.
III. 	CONCLUSION
For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Transfer, [ECF No. 18], is GRANTED. It is
hereby ordered that Defendants and Mr. Holding’s Motion to Quash, [ECF No. 1], is
TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.
SO ORDERED.
January 6, 2026 	/s/ Allison D. Burroughs
ALLISON D. BURROUGHS
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:26-mc-00201-DDC-TJJ Document 38 Filed 01/06/26 Page 6 of 6