*1 Pending before the court is the Subscriber Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendant BCBSAL to Produce Identifying Data. (Doc. 1612). The motion has been fully briefed, discussed at the In-Person Status Conference held on October 26, 2017, and now is ripe for the court's decision.

The Subscriber Plaintiffs argue that BCBSAL has refused to provide “the benefit plan names and plan design features, including deductibles, co-pays, co-insurance, and out-of-pocket maximums, for each of the merit-rated groups enrolled with BCBSAL during the class period, on a group by group, year by year basis.” (Doc. 1612, p. 1) The Subscribers assert that this data must exist for BCBSAL to conduct ordinary business functions, including the processing and adjudication of claims. The Subscribers move this court to order BCBSAL to either (1) produce this data in some form, (2) provide Bates numbers of documents that contain this requested information, (3) produce such data in writing, or (4) provide an explanation of or decipher for the Coverage Code Data.

BCBSAL argues that the data does not exist in a structured format that may be easily exported to the Subscribers and further asserts that BCBSAL has produced structured claims data from which the Subscribers can derive the requested data. Alternatively, BCBSAL argues that production of documents relating to each merit-rated plan would be unduly burdensome and not proportional to the needs of the case. Finally, BCBSAL argues that it cannot be compelled to create structured data.

Under Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case ....” Relevancy “has been construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978).

The court rejects BCBSAL's position that the requested information, however and in whatever form produced, is not proportional to the needs of this case and is unduly burdensome. The requested data is relevant in that the information addresses several key aspects of the case: (1) proving liability through the competiveness of pricing, (2) calculating and modeling damages, and (3) certifying a class. Furthermore, the court simply refuses to reward or incentivize a company to develop and structure its databases in such a way as to impede the discovery of the information contained within that database.

The court hereby GRANTS the Subscribers' Motion to Compel Defendant BCBSAL to Produce Identifying Data. Insomuch as the Subscribers and BCBSAL have agreed on the production of an explanation of or a decipher of the Coverage Code Data, BCBSAL is ORDERED to produce such explanation or decipher as soon as possible.

Within seven (7) days of receipt of said explanation or decipher, the plaintiffs are ORDERED to inform BCBSAL whether the explanation or decipher resolves the issue, and if the explanation or decipher fails to resolve the issue, to Meet and Confer with BCBSAL. At the Meet and Confer, BCBSAL is ORDERED to make available Leanna Bains, BCBSAL's information technology specialist, to discuss with the Subscribers' expert or vendor (1) the Coverage Code Data and (2) the feasibility and capability of producing or exporting the requested data contained in BCBSAL's merit-rated databases. The parties also are DIRECTED to discuss whether Subscribers' expert or vendor may have access to inspect BCBSAL's databases to determine whether the databases may feasibly be exported or produced.

*2 If the Meet & Confer confirms that the data cannot be feasibly exported or produced, the plaintiff is DIRECTED to file a status report suggesting feasible ways the data may be produced.

DONE and ORDERED on October 31, 2017.