Minerva26

Medimpact Healthcare Sys., Inc. v. IQVIA Inc.

2021 WL 5625443 (S.D. Cal. 2021)

August 4, 2021

Butcher, Daniel E., United States Magistrate Judge

Download PDF

To Cite List

Summary

The Court found that Plaintiffs provided sufficient responses to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 4, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14, but ordered Plaintiffs to provide further, responsive information to Disputed Interrogatory No. 12. Additionally, the Court granted the Motion to Seal and directed the Clerk of Court to file the documents lodged at Dkt. Nos. 267 under seal. The case involved ESI, such as claims adjudication data, which was relevant to the parties' claims and defenses.

Additional Decisions

MEDIMPACT HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
IQVIA INC., et al., Defendants

Case No.: 19-cv-1865-GPC (DEB)

United States District Court, S.D. California

Filed August 04, 2021

Counsel

Cary D. Sullivan, Jones Day, Irvine, CA, Daniel A. Lawton, Klinedinst, PC, Randall E. Kay, Alyssa Marie Moscrop, Nicholas Aaron Hodges, Jones Day, San Diego, CA, Jennifer D. Bennett, Dentons US LLP, San Francisco, CA, Sheila L. Shadmand, Pro Hac Vice, Jones Day, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs Medimpact Healthcare Systems, Inc., Medimpact International LLC, Medimpact International Hong Kong Ltd.
Alexander Guy Davis, Baker & McKenize LLP, Palo Alto, CA, Ari M. Berman, Pro Hac Vice, Daryl Lian Kleiman, Pro Hac Vice, Kenneth W. Taber, Pro Hac Vice, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, New York, NY, Stephen Andrew Swedlow, Pro Hac Vice, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Michelle Renee Schmit, Pro Hac Vice, Chicago, IL, Teresa Harrold Michaud, Baker & McKenzie, Michael J. Finnegan, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Weldon Barton Rankin, Pro Hac Vice, Baker & McKenzie, Dallas, TX, Callie A. Bjurstrom, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendants IQVIA Inc., IQVIA AG, Omar Ghosheh, Amit Sadana.
Ari M. Berman, Pro Hac Vice, Daryl Lian Kleiman, Pro Hac Vice, Kenneth W. Taber, Pro Hac Vice, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, New York, NY, Stephen Andrew Swedlow, Pro Hac Vice, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Michelle Renee Schmit, Pro Hac Vice, Chicago, IL, Teresa Harrold Michaud, Baker & McKenzie, Michael J. Finnegan, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Weldon Barton Rankin, Pro Hac Vice, Baker & McKenzie, Dallas, TX, Callie A. Bjurstrom, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendant IQVIA LTD.

Butcher, Daniel E., United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF DISCOVERY DISPUTE AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

I. INTRODUCTION

*1 Before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute. Dkt. No. 268. At issue are Defendants' Interrogatory Nos. 2, 4, and 9–14 (“Disputed Interrogatories”). Defendants claim Plaintiffs answers to the Disputed Interrogatories are unresponsive; Plaintiffs disagree. Id. Having reviewed each Disputed Interrogatory, Plaintiffs' responses, and the parties' Joint Motion, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants' request to compel further responses.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“[B]road discretion is vested in the trial court to permit or deny discovery ....” Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). Even after the 2015 amendments to Rule 26, “discovery relevance remains a broad concept.” Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. SFR Invs. Pool 1, LLC, No.14-cv-02046-JAD-PAL, 2016 WL 778368, at *2 n.16 (D. Nev. Feb. 25, 2016); see also Odyssey Wireless, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd, No. 15-cv-01735-H (RBB), 2016 WL 7665898, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2016) (“Relevance is construed broadly to include any matter that bears on, or reasonably could lead to other matters that could bear on, any issue that may be in the case.”) (citing Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 350–51 (1978)).

“An interrogatory may relate to any matter that may be inquired into under Rule 26(b).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). When a party fails to respond to interrogatories or fails to provide adequate responses to interrogatories as required by Rule 33, the requesting party may move for an order compelling further responses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii).

III. DISCUSSION

Defendants challenge the adequacy of Plaintiffs' responses to the following Disputed Interrogatories:

• No. 2 – Identify all publicly available or third-party information from which You acquired, received, obtained, developed, or derived any alleged Trade Secret identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1, or which you reviewed, relied upon, summarized, analyzed, or discussed, in whole or in part, in developing any such Trade Secret.

• No. 4 – Identify the circumstances, specific to each separate Defendant, under which You contend that any Defendant had access to, accessed, acquired, received, or obtained all or any part of any alleged Trade Secret identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1, including, without limitation: (a) the date(s) each Defendant allegedly had access to, accessed, acquired, received, or obtained any such Trade Secret; (b) the identity of each Person(s) who allegedly had access to, accessed, acquired, received, or obtained any such Trade Secret; and (c) the identity of each Person(s) who granted or provided access to any such Trade Secret to any Defendant.

• No. 9 – Identify any data processed by MedImpact, including, without limitation, claims adjudication data, that You contend each Defendant used, disclosed, or misappropriated, by separately identifying: (a) the data used, disclosed, misappropriated, or provided, including, without limitation, the components, elements, scope, and bounds of that data; (b) to whom that data was disclosed or provided; (c) the date(s) when that data was disclosed or provided.

*2 • No. 10 – Identify the publicly available or third-party information from which You acquired, received, obtained, developed, or derived any data identified in response to Interrogatory No. 8, or which you reviewed, relied upon, summarized, analyzed, or discussed, in whole or in part, in developing or deriving any such data.

• No. 11 – Identify the factual basis supporting any contention by You that Defendants did not lawfully acquire, receive, or obtain any data identified in response to Interrogatory No. 8 solely from publicly available or third-party sources, or other proper means including, without limitation, from the DHA or the HAAD.

• No. 12 – Identify every third party to whom You have disclosed any data identified in response to Interrogatory No. 8, and the terms applicable to or governing such disclosure, including, without limitation, any confidentiality, non-disclosure, or nonuse agreements. To the extent that no such terms applicable to or governing the disclosure exist, including any confidentiality, non-disclosure, or non-use agreements, state that no such terms exist.

• No. 13 –Identify the circumstances, specific to each separate Defendant, under which You contend that each Defendant had access to, accessed, acquired, received, or obtained any data identified in response to Interrogatory No. 8, including, without limitation: (a) the date(s) each Defendant allegedly had access to, accessed, acquired, received, or obtained any such data; (b) the identity of each Person(s) who allegedly had access to, accessed, acquired, received, or obtained any such data; and (c) the identity of each Person(s) who granted or provided access to any such data to any Defendant.

• No. 14 – Identify the factual basis supporting any contention by You, specific to each separate Defendant, that each Defendant improperly used, disclosed, or misappropriated any data identified in response to Interrogatory No. 8, including, without limitation, by separately identifying each such alleged improper use, disclosure, or misappropriation, including the circumstances, date(s), Person(s) involved, and Person(s) with knowledge of the alleged improper use, disclosure, or misappropriation.

Dkt. Nos. 268-3, 268-4.

Plaintiffs served responses and objections, amended responses and objections, and supplemental responses and objections to the Disputed Interrogatories on December 17, 2021, March 1, 2021, and April 29, 2021. Dkt. No. 268 at 2. Defendants argue these responses “fail to respond to the questions asked.” Id. at 4. Plaintiffs counter that “when the responses were served, [Plaintiffs] provided all the responsive information it possessed based upon a reasonable investigation ....” Id. at 8.

The Court rules as follows:

Disputed Interrogatory Nos. 2, 4, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14:

The Court finds Plaintiffs provided sufficient responses to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 4, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14. The Court, therefore, declines to order further responses to them.[1]

Disputed Interrogatory No. 12:

*3 The Court finds Plaintiffs' response to Interrogatory No. 12 is insufficient. Interrogatory No. 12 seeks the identification of any third parties to whom Plaintiffs disclosed their claims data and the terms governing such disclosures. Id. Although Plaintiffs assert they “shared certain trade secrets and confidential information with certain customers and partners” and are “required by governmental regulation to send all claims data relating to Dubai to the Dubai Health Authority and relating to Abu Dhabi to the Abu Dhabi Health Authority,” Plaintiffs fail to identify those third parties and the disclosure terms. Dkt. No. 268-4 at 130–132.[2] The Court, therefore, orders Plaintiffs to provide further, responsive information to Disputed Interrogatory No. 12.

IV. MOTION TO SEAL

Defendants filed a Motion to File Under Seal Pursuant to L.R. 79.2. Dkt. No. 266. Defendants request the Court seal the documents lodged at Dkt. No. 267 (highlighted and nonhighlighted versions of Plaintiffs' Supplemental Objections and Responses to Defendant IQVIA Inc.'s First Set of Interrogatories) because they implicate Defendants' “confidential and sensitive business information regarding [their] operations, including detailed graphics and descriptions concerning the operations of [their] products and offerings.” Id. at 3. The parties filed a redacted pleading that omits the sensitive information in question. Dkt. No. 268. Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Seal and directs the Clerk of Court to file the documents lodged at Dkt. Nos. 267 under seal. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[A] particularized showing under the ‘good cause’ standard of Rule 26(c) will suffice to warrant preserving the secrecy of sealed discovery material attached to nondispositive motions.”) (citations, quotations, and edits omitted).

V. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants' request to compel further interrogatory responses. On or before August 20, 2021, Plaintiffs must provide responsive information to Defendants' Interrogatory No. 12. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to file the documents lodged at Dkt. No. 267 under seal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Footnotes

[1]

The Court interprets Plaintiffs' response to Interrogatory No. 11 to assert that Plaintiffs believe Defendants obtained all data identified in their response to Interrogatory No. 8 from Plaintiffs (specifically “data processed by or derived from Medimpact's PBM services”) and not any third party. If this interpretation is incorrect, Plaintiffs must supplement their response.

[2]

Plaintiffs' amended responses, served March 1, 2021, represent Plaintiffs will “produce non-privileged exemplar documents sufficient to show standard terms governing such disclosure.” Dkt. No. 268-4 at 131. It appears from Plaintiffs' submission in the Joint Motion that they have yet to produce these documents.