JOSEF K., ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SERVICE, ET AL., Defendants CASE NO. 18-cv-06385-YGR United States District Court, N.D. California Signed September 23, 2019 Counsel David M. Lilienstein, Katie Joy Spielman, DL Law Group, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiffs. Joseph Edward Laska, Carri Maas, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Allison Claire Nelson, Leah Adams, Manatt, Phelps and Phillips, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Gregory Neil Pimstone, Manatt Phelps & Phillips, LLP, Los Angels, CA, for Defendants California Physicians' Service, TriNet Blue Shield PPO 500 Group # 977103 Plan, TriNet Group, Inc. Jeremy Adam Meier, Alicia Intriago, Todd Alexander Pickles, Willis M. Wagner, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant Maximus Federal Services, Inc. Gonzalez Rogers, Yvonne, United States District Judge ORDER RE: DISCOVER LETTER BRIEF *1 The Court is in receipt of the parties’ letter briefs regarding plaintiffs’ request for discovery in the form of five interrogatories to defendant Maximus Federal Services, Inc. (“Maximus”). (Dkt. Nos. 81, 83.) Specifically, plaintiffs request discovery regarding Maximus’ overturn rates, the identities of the physician-reviewers who performed the relevant medical reviews in this case, and the overturn rates for those particular physician-reviewers. (Dkt. No. 81 at 2-3.) Having carefully reviewed the letter briefs and related papers, and for the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs’ request for leave to propound the proposed interrogatories. With respect to interrogatories 1 through 3, Maximus has represented that, “[s]hould the Court assume for purposes of discovery that M[aximus] is a fiduciary of the plan,” Maximus is willing to provide plaintiffs with the requested information. (Dkt. No. 83 at 4.) At this juncture, the Court need not take a position on whether Maximus is in fact a fiduciary. Given the pending legal claim, information regarding Maximus’ overturn rates is relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. As to interrogatories 4 and 5, the Court finds that information regarding the identities and overturn rates of the physician-reviewers who performed the review at issue is likewise relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. In their first amended complaint, plaintiffs allege that Maximus breached its fiduciary duty by performing a “cursory, incomplete, and/or biased” review of plaintiff E.K.’s claim. (Dkt. No. 46 ¶¶ 102-104.) Thus, the manner in which the review was conducted is at the crux of plaintiffs’ fiduciary duty claim. Plaintiffs therefore are entitled to the requested information about the individuals who performed this review.[1] Accordingly, plaintiffs’ request for leave to propound the proposed interrogatories is GRANTED. Further, the Court ADOPTS the proposed amended protective order, attached hereto as Exhibit A. This Order terminates Dkt. No. 81. IT IS SO ORDERED. September 23, 2019 Dated: YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS Footnotes [1] Under California Health & Safety Code section 1374.33(e), independent medical review organizations like Maximus “shall keep the names of the reviewers confidential in all communications with entities or individuals outside the independent medical review organization, except in cases where the reviewer is called to testify and in response to court orders.” (Emphasis supplied.) Thus, section 1374.33(e) contemplates court orders permitting disclosure of reviewers’ identities. Moreover, any concerns regarding such disclosures in this case can be addressed through a protective order.