Medimpact Healthcare Systems, Inc. v. IQVIA Holdings Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MEDIMPACT HEALTHCARE Case No.: 19-cv-1865-GPC-DEB SYSTEMS, INC., et al., 12 ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR Plaintiffs, 13 DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE v. REGARDING RECONSIDERATION 14 OF COURT ORDER AND IQVIA INC., et al., 15 GRANTING MOTIONS TO SEAL Defendants. DOCUMENTS 16 17 [DKT. NOS. 310, 312, 313]

18 19 I. INTRODUCTION 20 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion for Determination of Dispute Regarding 21 Reconsideration of Court Order. Dkt. No. 312. Plaintiffs request the Court reconsider its 22 August 9, 2021 Order (Dkt. No. 289) “regarding whether QHIE-HUB should be within the 23 scope of discovery.” Dkt. No. 312 at 3.1 24 25 26 1 The QHIE-HUB dispute implicates Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production (“RFP”) to: 27 • Dr. Ghosheh, Set Two, RFP Nos. 80–112, 117–121; • Mr. Sadana, Set Two, RFP Nos. 80–112, 120–124; 28 1 For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS reconsideration and orders 2 Defendants to provide discovery regarding QHIE-HUB. 3 II. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 4 On July 16, 2021, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery 5 Dispute. Dkt. No. 263. At issue was Plaintiffs’ discovery requests relating to seven of 6 Defendants’ projects, including QHIE-HUB. Id. at 4. Defendants objected to the relevance 7 of the discovery. Id. at 9. On August 9, 2021, the Court issued an order granting in part and 8 denying in part Plaintiffs’ request to compel discovery regarding these projects. Dkt. 9 No. 289. In pertinent part, the Court found Plaintiffs did “not establish[ ] the relevance of 10 the . . . QHIE-HUB . . . project[ ].” Id. at 3. 11 Through this Joint Motion, Plaintiffs seek reconsideration of the Court’s Order as it 12 relates to QHIE-HUB. Plaintiffs contend newly discovered evidence establishes the 13 relevance of the QHIE-HUB project. Dkt. No. 312 at 2. Defendants oppose 14 reconsideration, maintaining their position that QHIE-HUB is not relevant to this case. Id. 15 at 5. 16 III. DISCUSSION 17 A party may apply for reconsideration “[w]henever any motion or any application 18 or petition for any order or other relief has been made to any judge and has been refused in 19 whole or in part . . . .” CivLR 7.1(i)(1). The party seeking reconsideration must show “what 20 new or different facts and circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist, or were 21 not shown, upon such prior application.” Id. 22 In this Motion, Plaintiffs submit new evidence supporting their claim that 23 Defendants either provided or planned to provide pharmacy benefits management (“PBM”) 24 25 • IQVIA AG and IQVIA LTD., Set Three, RFP Nos. 86–118, 126–130; and 26 • IQVIA AG and IQVIA LTD., Set One, RFP Nos. 23–25, 34, 59–62, 75. 27 Dkt. No. 312 at 2. 28 1 in connection with the QHIE-HUB project. See Dkt. No. 312-1 (Declaration of Nicholas 2 Hodges and Exhibits 1–6).2 Defendants submit evidence supporting their assertion that 3 QHIE-HUB did not involve PBM. See Dkt. No. 312-2 (Declaration of Sumit Sadana and 4 Exhibits A–I). The Court cannot resolve this factual dispute on a discovery motion. 5 Informing factual disputes is the precise purpose of discovery. See, e.g., Computer Task 6 Group, Inc. v. Brotby, 364 F.3d 1112, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004) (One purpose of discovery is 7 to “reveal what evidence the opposing party has, thereby helping determine which facts are 8 undisputed . . . and which facts must be resolved at trial.”). 9 The Court finds the new evidence submitted by Plaintiffs establishes the QHIE-HUB 10 discovery they seek meets the relevancy requirement of Rule 26(b)(1). See Soto v. City of 11 Concord, 126 F.R.D. 603, 610 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (“[T]he question of relevancy should be 12 construed liberally and with common sense and discovery should be allowed unless the 13 information sought has no conceivable bearing on the case.”) (internal quotation omitted); 14 see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any non- 15 privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the 16 needs of the case . . . .”). The Court, therefore, GRANTS reconsideration. 17 IV. MOTION TO SEAL 18 Each party filed a motion to seal documents. Dkt. Nos. 310, 313. The parties request 19 the Court seal the documents lodged at Dkt. Nos. 311 and 314 (Joint Motion for 20 Determination of Discovery Dispute, certain exhibits provided in support of the Joint 21 Motion, Plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration, Defendant Amit Sadana’s declaration, and 22 accompanying exhibits to the declarations) because these documents implicate 23 Defendants’ “confidential and sensitive business information,” and contain Defendants’ 24 operations and business, and “confidential projects, products and deal terms.” Dkt. 25 26 27 2 Plaintiffs satisfy the requirements for reconsideration because they support their request with five documents Defendants produced in discovery following the Court’s 28 1 || Nos. 310 at 3; 313 at 3. The parties filed a redacted pleading (without attaching exhibits) 2 ||that omits the information in question. Dkt. No. 312. Good cause appearing, the Court 3 || GRANTS the Motions to Seal and directs the Clerk of Court to file the documents lodged 4 Dkt. Nos. 311 and 314 under seal. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 5 || 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[A] particularized showing under the ‘good cause’ standard 6 Rule 26(c) will suffice to warrant preserving the secrecy of sealed discovery material 7 || attached to nondispositive motions.”) (citations, quotations, and edits omitted). 8 Vv. CONCLUSION 9 On or before October 20, 2021, Defendants must produce responsive documents on 10 QHIE-HUB project. The Clerk of Court is ordered to file the documents lodged at Dkt. 11 || Nos. 311 and 314 under seal. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: October 6, 2021 — 14 wudGedinfdlnn. 15 Honorable Daniel E. Butcher United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28