Is it really an opposition to a motion to compel if the brief does not bemoan the plaintiff’s discovery “fishing expedition”? 

We don’t think so.  A license to practice law seems to mandate that the holder must use the fishing expedition metaphor whenever discovery is the topic.  As a result, we were a little amused by In re Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists GLP-1 Ras Prods. Liab. Litig., 24-md-3094, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208548 (ED Pa. Oct. 23, 2025) (“In re GLP-1”), which described the MDL discovery at issue as a “snipe hunt.”

In addition to staking out its bold “fishing expedition=nah/snipe hunt=yeah” stand, In re GLP-1 confirms that even in an MDL, discovery requests can go too far, require too much, and impose more burdens than they are worth.  The juice ain’t worth the squeeze, if you will permit us yet another metaphor.

In In re GLP-1, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania addressed whether MDL plaintiffs were entitled to obtain animal histopathology slides from 22 preclinical studies conducted by two pharmaceutical manufacturers, implicating thousands of slides per defendant.  Adopting the recommendation of the MDL special discovery master, the court denied the motion to compel, finding the slides’ minimal relevance and the disproportionate burdens that production would entail outweighed any potential benefit.

Or, in the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), the discovery was not sufficiently relevant and proportional to the needs of the case.

The court was generous in concluding that the animal histopathology slides weren’t entirely irrelevant, although that was only so because they potentially might bear on what defendants knew and reported to the FDA regarding preclinical findings, but this relevance was marginal at best.  The defendants already had produced extensive discovery, including the study reports they submitted to the FDA based on the slides themselves.  Not to mention literally millions of pages of safety data spanning over two decades, plus their various study protocols, appendices, backup, and regulatory communications.  

The court emphasized that the plaintiffs’ speculation—that the slides theoretically might reveal information withheld from the FDA—was unfounded.  There was nothing suggesting study information was withheld from the agency or misrepresented to it.  Plaintiffs failed to identify any specific studies or prior instances suggesting that the study reports were inaccurate or incomplete.  In other words, plaintiffs were proposing to drag themselves, the defendants, and the court all off on a long, expensive, complicated trip to hunt hypothetical and mythical discovery snipe—and to foist the cost of that fool’s journey off on the defendants.  (We would also add that fraud-on-the-FDA claims are preempted under Buckman.)

Fortunately, the court was not having any of it.

The court first recognized that the burden of the production of the underlying animal histopathology slides would be substantial.  Locating, reviewing, and producing thousands of physical slides would require significant resources, including specialized handling, imaging, and protocol negotiations about preserving specimen integrity. The whole process would be time- and resource-intensive, particularly given the volume of slides requested. 

Next, the court recognized that this was not first-tier evidence.  (Frankly, it wasn’t even second- or third- or fourth-tier evidence.)  Had these slides really been essential evidence, plaintiffs would have sought them earlier in discovery, they would have been able to credibly articulate the evidentiary value of the slides, and they would have diligently pursued them throughout.  Instead, plaintiffs’ demand for the slides came up late in discovery, was intermittently discussed by the parties, and then resulted in the motion to compel only after plaintiffs left the issue languishing for several months. 

Weighing the minimal probative value of the animal histopathology slides against the significant burden and expense of production, the court concluded that the request was not proportional to the needs of “the case”—even though that “case” was an entire MDL.  

Proportionality in discovery matters, even in complex MDL proceedings where voluminous discovery is the norm.  Although the scope of discovery allowed under Rule 26 is broad, it is not limitless.