I. INTRODUCTION

4. Several of the Plaintiff-States, including Louisiana, jointly objected to Special Master Marion's R&R, asserting that even the narrowed-in-scope RFP 68 quoted above is overbroad and unduly burdensome. The States’ Objections included the proposition that “the Court should order that [RFP 68] be limited to apply no further than to (1) the Objecting States’ Attorneys General Offices who bring this case, and (2) the agencies for which the Objecting States seek damages in this MDL and from whom they have already produced documents.”

5. On September 25, 2023, Defendants filed a letter motion seeking an order compelling Louisiana to comply with RFP 68 by producing documents “in the possession of the Attorney General's Office as well as legislatures, certain State agencies, and other sources.” That letter motion was referred to me.

6. Judge Rufe ruled on the States’ objections to Special Master Marion's Twelfth R&R on October 20, 2023. She approved the bulk of the R&R and the narrowed scope of RFP 68; she did not approve the recommended requirement that the State Attorneys General produce documents from State Legislatures, reasoning that this is unnecessary given the public nature of such documents.

7. I held a conference with the parties on November 7, 2023, during which I instructed Louisiana to comply with RFP 68 given Judge Rufe's clear ruling on its scope.

*2 8. On December 6, 2023, I held another conference with the parties to assess Louisiana's progress, and learned that little had been made, despite the parties reaching an agreement on reasonable search terms, custodians, and time periods for the document search. During the December 6 conference, I again directed Louisiana to comply with RFP 68, and summarized this direction in an email circulated to the parties following the call.

9. In that email, and consistent with Judge Rufe's October 20, 2023 ruling, I directed Louisiana to (1) search for and produce documents in the possession of the Louisiana Department of Health and four of its subsidiaries (the Health Care Commission, the Medicaid Pharmaceutical and Therapeutics Committee, the Pharmacy Benefit Manager Monitoring Counsel, and the Health Data Panel), and the Louisiana Board of Pharmacy; (2) ensure that searches for documents responsive to RFP 68 be conducted of the emails and other files of custodians Ms. Gunnels, Ms. Deblieux, Mr. Diez, Mr. Alderman, and Mr. Rogers; (3) research and determine whether there are state reporting requirements that would compel health care providers to submit, to Louisiana, information relevant in this litigation and report on the outcome of this search to [Defendants]; and (4) produce documents from the Optum litigation responsive to RFP 68. Louisiana was directed to comply with RFP 68 by the end of 2023.

10. Despite this clear direction, Louisiana has still failed to produce documents responsive to RFP 68 using agreed-upon search terms and custodians.

11. As a result, Defendants move for an Order compelling Louisiana to comply with RFP 68 by a date certain, which appears appropriate at this juncture.

II. DISCUSSION

III. CONCLUSION