The biopharmaceutical company co-founded by convicted stock fraudster Martin Shkreli has lost its bid to depose the executive of a generic pharmaceutical company in connection with an antitrust lawsuit, and a Philadelphia federal judge has ordered it to pay the executive’s legal bill.

U.S. District Judge J. Curtis Joyner of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted a motion to quash a subpoena issued by Retrophin, in which the company sought to depose an executive at Prinston Pharmaceuticals. The ruling was handed up Wednesday, and docketed with the court Thursday.

Retrophin, which was co-founded by Shkreli in 2011, had been granted limited discovery to develop its argument that Spring Pharmaceuticals—the company suing Retrophin on antitrust claims over the drug Thiola—does not have constitutional standing to bring its lawsuit. But Joyner determined that the subpoena for the Prinston executive was not relevant to the standing issue. Along with quashing the subpoena, the judge also ordered Retrophin to cover the costs of reasonable attorney fees that Prinston spent fighting the subpoena.

“We find that defendant Retrophin, in attempting to depose a non-party on a matter irrelevant to the question of whether plaintiff Spring has constitutional standing to sue, thereby overstepping the narrow scope of discovery at this early stage in the underlying litigation, did not ‘take reasonable steps to avoid imposing an undue burden on a third party,’” Joyner said. “If we follow Retrophin’s reasoning, the discovery could spiral into depositions of anyone who had any conversation with Spring about  possibly developing a generic version of Thiola, which would impermissibly expand the narrow scope of the jurisdictional discovery we ordered on the threshold question of standing.”

READ THE RULING:

After co-founding Retrophin, Shkreli became CEO of the company, but was forced out in 2014. The former executive became infamous a year later for increasing the price of a lifesaving HIV drug by 5,000%, and reaping staggering profits for his company, Turing Pharmaceuticals, in the process. In 2017, he was convicted for defrauding investors in two hedge funds he created.

Although Shkreli had sued Retrophin over his ouster—seeking at least $30 million—that litigation resolved with a settlement in late June.

Retrophin’s dispute with Spring stems from claims that Spring had intended to develop a generic version of Retrophin’s drug Thiola, but the company allegedly refused to provide Spring with samples of the drug. According to Spring, that refusal amounted to anti-competitive behavior.

In its defense, Retrophin said Spring has to prove it was not simply a “shell” company that had been created to mount an alleged “sham litigation.” The company said Spring needed to show it was actually prepared and financially able to enter the generic market as a competitor to Thiola.

Spring countered that it had taken substantial steps toward developing a generic version of Thiola, as it had allegedly secured funding, communicated with consultants and had entered into an agreement with a “contract development and manufacturing organization” (or CDMO), which it refused to name.

The court granted limited discovery on the jurisdictional standing question.

Retrophin eventually served nonparty Lesley Zhu, who is a senior vice president at Prinston, with a subpoena. Prinston, according to Joyner, had been contacted by Spring in August 2017 to discuss possibly developing a generic version of Thiola. Prinston, however, withdrew from the talks in May 2018.

According to Joyner, Retrophin argued that Zhu’s testimony could possibly answer whether Prinston had been able to get samples of Thiola, but Joyner said the request was essentially an “attempt … to take advantage of the apparent overlap between the injury-in-fact requirement, which must be satisfied for a plaintiff to show constitutional standing, and the ‘antitrust injury’ requirement for a plaintiff to establish antitrust standing.”

The questions Retrophin wanted to ask of Zhu, Joyner said, would better be answered by executives from either Spring, or the unnamed CDMO.

“If Retrophin sought to depose an employee of the CDMO with whom Spring alleged it had an agreement to help it develop a generic version of Thiola, our decision would likely be different,” Joyner said. “However, Spring’s ability to access samples of Thiola is a merits question for plaintiff Spring.”

Joyner further denied a motion Retrophin filed seeking to hold Zhu in contempt for refusing to sit for the deposition.

Duane Morris attorney Alan Klein, who is representing Zhu, said he plans to submit a petition for expenses in the coming weeks, which will outline attorney fees in connection with fighting both the subpoena and the contempt motion.

“It was a fine opinion by the court. Very detailed and well supported,” Klein said.

Spring is being represented by David Dahlquist of Winston & Strawn. Cooley LLP attorney Randall Lee is representing Retrophin, and William Stassen of Fox Rothschild is representing Shkreli. None of the attorneys immediately returned messages seeking comment Friday.