Maverick Therapeutics Inc. v. Harpoon Therapeutics, Inc.

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SAM GLASSCOCK III VICE CHANCELLOR COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE COURT OF CHANCERY COURTHOUSE 34 THE CIRCLE GEORGETOWN, DELAWARE 19947 September 6, 2019 Jody C. Barillare The Nemours Building 1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 501 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Wilmington, DE 19801 John P. DiTomo Elizabeth A. Mullin Aubrey J. Morin Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP 1201 North market Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Gregory P. Williams Steven J. Fineman Nicole K. Pedi Angela Lam Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. 920 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 RE: Maverick Therapeutics, Inc. v. Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. C.A. No. 2019-0002-SG Privilege disputes Dear Counsel: I received the documents and deposition transcript passages that remain in dispute in this matter, and I have had the opportunity to review them. With regard to the four challenged documents (Bates labeled HARPOON00000144, MPM0061972, MPM0062259, and MPM0065502), I find that the joint privilege is waived because these were provided to Harpoon’s testifying expert, Dr. Bruce Tidor. 1 I find that Maverick and Millennium’s argument regarding waiver is not time-barred, given the recent nature of Dr. Tidor’s report and the several intervening meet and confers that took place regarding discovery. 1 I acknowledge Harpoon’s attempt to parse Dr. Tidor’s responses between Maverick and Millennium; nonetheless, Dr. Tidor had the documents and reached his opinions in reliance upon them, and therefore the privilege is waived. Regarding the twelve disputed passages from the depositions of Dr. Luke Evnin and Michael Hostetler, I find they concern areas of attorney-client privilege and are therefore protected by the joint privilege. As such, the twelve passages identified by the parties in the materials I received will remain redacted. To the extent the foregoing requires an order to take effect, it is SO ORDERED. Sincerely, /s/ Sam Glasscock III Sam Glasscock III 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.