Edgar et al v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ltd. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
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.
Case No. 22-cv-2501-DDC-TJJ
IN CAMERA REVIEW ORDER
The Court has completed its in camera review of the unredacted portions of two emails
provided by Goodwin Procter LLP (“Goodwin”) pursuant to the Court’s August 25, 2026
Memorandum and Order (ECF No. 396) (“M&O”).1 	That M&O ordered Goodwin to provide
unredacted versions of the emails at issue so the Court could review them in camera to determine
whether Goodwin should be compelled to produce the emails in unredacted form.
Based upon its review, the Court finds Goodwin must produce both disputed email strings
in unredacted form. Under applicable law in this District, redactions for unresponsiveness are not
1 Redacted versions of the emails are filed as Exhibits K and L to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel
Goodwin (ECF Nos. 349-9 and 349-10) (sealed).
Case 2:22-cv-02501-DDC-TJJ Document 399 Filed 09/04/26 Page 1 of 3

2
permitted.2 Allowing such unilateral redactions would insert “another step in the process,” inviting
additional discovery disputes and undermine Fed. R. Civ. P. 1’s directive to construe the Rules to
advance the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of cases.3 Goodwin may not unilaterally
“scrub responsive documents for non-responsive information”4 by redacting the subpoenaed
documents it produced for “non-responsiveness,” absent some agreement permitting the redaction.
As the Court previously found in its M&O, Goodwin is not a “party,” and therefore not
permitted to rely upon the ESI Protocol’s provision permitting non-responsive redactions for
“parent emails” absent the parties’ agreement. Even if the ESI Protocol applied to Goodwin, its
provision allowing redaction for nonresponsive information only permits redactions for “parent
emails.” Although the parties’ ESI Protocol does not define the term “parent email,” the Court
construes it to mean an email (the “parent”) that transmits an attachment (the “child’).5 With that
understanding, none of Goodwin’s redacted email strings appear to qualify as a “parent email” that
would permit redaction for non-responsiveness.
Finally, the Court finds the redactions on the June 4, 2012 email string appear to be
innocuous, non-substantive responses between email recipients, e.g., redacting the letters “Fyi.”
2 See McNabb v. City of Overland Park, No. 12-CV-2331 CM/TJJ, 2014 WL 1152958, at *2 (D.
Kan. Mar. 21, 2014) (“In the few cases in this district where the court has addressed the propriety of
unilateral redactions of either irrelevant, non-responsive, or confidential information, unilateral redactions
have been found to be inappropriate.”) (discussing Williams v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., No. 03-2200-JWL-
DJW, 2007 WL 634735, at *3 (D. Kan. Feb. 27, 2007); HR Tech., Inc. v. Imura Int'l U.S.A., Inc., No. 08-
2220-JWL, 2010 WL 4792388, at *5–*6 (D. Kan. Nov. 17, 2010)).
3 Fish v. Kobach, No. 16-2105-JAR, 2017 WL 1373882, at *7 (D. Kan. Apr. 17, 2017) (citations
omitted).
4 Id.
5 See ESI Protocol (ECF No. 100) ¶ IV.A. (referencing “parent email and all attachments”); ¶ IV.G.
(“The parent-child relationship between attachments, enclosures, embedded files, and/or exhibits to any
parent document shall be preserved.”).
Case 2:22-cv-02501-DDC-TJJ Document 399 Filed 09/04/26 Page 2 of 3

3
The Court finds no reasonable basis for redaction of this information in the first place. While the
redacted portions may not be responsive or relevant to the timeliness issue, redaction of
information such as this merely invites unnecessary discovery disputes by causing the receiving
party to presume the redacted information is worth pursuing. With regard to Goodwin’s redactions
of the May 7, 2015 email string, the Court finds the redacted information is substantive, responsive,
and relevant to the timeliness issue. This information was improperly redacted as “non-
responsive.”
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Goodwin (ECF No.
349) is granted as to Plaintiffs’ request that Goodwin remove its improper non-responsiveness
redactions and produce in unredacted form the two emails identified as Exhibits K and L to
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (ECF Nos. 349-9 and 349-10).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Goodwin shall produce unredacted versions of these
two emails to Plaintiffs within ten (10) days of the date of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated September 4, 2026, at Kansas City, Kansas.
Teresa J. James
U. S. Magistrate Judge
Case 2:22-cv-02501-DDC-TJJ Document 399 Filed 09/04/26 Page 3 of 3