Strom v. Scios, Inc. et al

Filing 171

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting 159 Motion to Compel (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

UNITED STATES ex rel. STROM,

No. 05-3004 CRB (JSC)

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12

Plaintiffs,
13

v.

ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO COMPEL (Dkt. No. 159)

14
15
16

SCIOS, INC. and JOHNSON &
JOHNSON,
Defendants.

17
18
19

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Compel the production of inpatient

20

and outpatient claims data from Medicare, TRICARE, and FEHBP from January 1, 2001 to

21

December 31, 2007 for each patient ID number for which the government alleges a false claim

22

was submitted. (Dkt. No. 159.) Having considered the papers submitted by the parties, and

23

having had the benefit of oral argument on December 1, 2011, the Court GRANTS

24

Defendants’ motion.

25

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party “may obtain discovery regarding

26

any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

27

26(b)(1). The information sought need not be admissible at trial “if the discovery appears

28

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. The scope of

1

discovery is “extremely broad” and includes “any matter that bears on, or that reasonably

2

could lead to other matters that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.” Soto v.

3

Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 610 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (internal citations and quotations omitted).

4

“The question of relevancy should be construed “liberally and with common sense” and “be

5

allowed unless the information sought has no conceivable bearing on the case.” United States

6

v. Cathcart, 2009 WL 1764642 at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 18, 2009) (internal citations and

7

quotations omitted).

8

Given the broad scope of discovery, and for the reasons stated at oral argument,

9

Defendants established that the requested inpatient and outpatient claims data from Medicare,

Northern District of California

TRICARE, and FEHBP is relevant to damages and therefore discoverable. The Court

11
United States District Court

10

questioned the necessity of claims data for each patient for the entire January 1, 2001 to

12

December 31, 2007 period, but the Government agreed with Defendants that limiting the time

13

period for specific patients would only add to the Government’s production burden.

14

Defendants’ Motion to Compel is therefore GRANTED. Claims data must be provided for

15

each patient whose treatment claims will be included in the Government’s calculation of

16

damages.

17

This Order disposes of Dkt. No. 159.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated: December 1, 2011
_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2