Jajco, Inc. v. Leader Drug Stores, Inc. et al

Filing 61

Order regarding 58 the parties' joint discovery dispute letter brief dated July 22, 2013. The court orders certain productions by August 15, 2013. See order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 8/6/2013.(lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/6/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 Northern District of California 10 San Francisco Division JAJCO, INC., dba ANCHOR DRUGS PHARMACY, No. C 12-05703 WHO (LB) 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 ORDER REGARDING THE PARTIES’ JOINT DISCOVERY DISPUTE LETTER BRIEF DATED JULY 22, 2013 LEADER DRUG STORES, INC., et al., 15 16 [Re: ECF No. 58] Defendants. _____________________________________/ 17 This case involves Anchor Drugs Pharmacy’s (“Anchor”) claim that Catamaran/InformedRX 18 (“Catamaran”), a third-party payor that processes claims submitted by Anchor to Health Plan of San 19 Mateo (“HPSM”), wrongly took roughly $514,000 in 2010 and 2011 from Anchor’s Central Pay 20 accounts with Leader Drug Stores, Inc. (“Leader”), a pharmacy services administrator. See Order 21 Denying Motion to Dismiss and Strike Third Amended Complaint, ECF No. 50 at 3; 7/12/2013 Joint 22 CMC Statement, ECF No. 57 at 3. Anchor also claims that Catamaran did not pay it the contracted 23 rate set forth in the HPSM contract for processing prescriptions and thus underpaid it for filled 24 prescriptions. See Order Denying Motion to Dismiss and Strike Third Amended Complaint, ECF 25 No. 50 at 3; 7/12/2013 Joint CMC Statement, ECF No. 57 at 3. Catamaran counters that it was 26 recapturing payments made in error (apparently in the amount of $700,000), but Anchor alleges that 27 HPSM’s audit shows that out of the 27,000 analyzed claims, only 10% were paid at the correct rate, 28 40% were underpaid, and the alleged overpayments were not the $700,000 that Catamaran claims. C 12-05703 WHO (LB) NOTICE OF REFERRAL AND ORDER 1 2 7/12/2013 Joint CMC Statement, ECF No. 57 at 3, 6. Catamaran’s counsel is unavailable from July 31, 2013 through August 9, 2013. Given the 3 tension with depositions scheduled in August and the mandatory settlement conference on 4 September 27, 2013, the undersigned issues this order directing the production of certain 5 information by August 15, 2013 and establishing parameters for future discovery disputes. 6 STATEMENT 7 The latest discovery dispute is described in a joint 24-page single-spaced letter. See 7/22/13 8 Joint Letter Brief, ECF No. 58. Anchor complains generally that Catamaran has delayed producing 9 discovery and refers to the inadequacy of Catamaran’s responses. For example, it says that it (1) exhibits), (2) requested certain contracts between Leader and Catamaran, and (3) asked for 12 For the Northern District of California made five requests for a complete copy of the IRX/HPSM contract (one with certain missing 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 documents regarding Catamaran’s new entity structure (it went from a corporation to a limited 13 liability corporation). Id. at 4. Catamaran responds as follows: (1) it produced the IRX/HPSM 14 contract over a year ago and it does not have any unidentified “missing” exhibits to it; (2) it 15 produced the contract between Leader and Catamaran over a year ago, and any “missing” contracts 16 either were produced by Leader or were confirmed as not existing by Catamaran; and (3) it shared 17 the relevant corporate structure information. Id. at 5-6. Thus, Catamaran says that it has produced 18 what Anchor wants, it does not know what else Anchor thinks is out there, and anything else does 19 not exist. 20 The letter then details the parties’ disagreements about the effectiveness of their meet-and-confer 21 process. Id. at 6-7. Anchor thinks that Catamaran is stalling, and this matters because depositions 22 are scheduled in August and a mandatory settlement conference is in September. Id. at 7. 23 Pages 8 through 24 are a RFP-by-RFP disagreement about (1) whether Catamaran has already 24 produced documents (which Catamaran often says that it has), or (2) if not, whether (as Catamaran 25 suggests) Anchor’s requests are too broad, and the parties ought to meet and confer more to narrow 26 the requests so that they are not objectionable. Id. at 8-24. The categories at issue are as follows: 27 (1) the relevant contracts; (2) Catamaran’s changed corporate structure; (3) claims, payments, and 28 recoupment data; (4) minutes and agendas of the Board of Directors regarding claims, payments, and C 12-05703 WHO (LB) NOTICE OF REFERRAL AND ORDER 2 1 recoupments; (5) Catamaran’s current financial condition; (6) documents regarding the ACE 2 investigation with respect to the claims, payments, and recoupments at issue; and (7) administrative 3 fees recovered by Catamaran. Id. 4 5 ANALYSIS The parties’ letter brief is repetitive and contains a lot of argument about whether or not 6 Catamaran is producing documents. Anchor says Catamaran is not, and Catamaran says that it is. 7 See, e.g., id. at 1-6. The parties also disagree about the adequacy of their meet-and-confer process. 8 See id. documents, and thus there is no problem for some categories. On the other hand, Anchor argues that 11 Catamaran has not produced relevant documents. Also, Catamaran’s responses often are technical 12 For the Northern District of California It is hard to tell what is going on. On the one hand, Catamaran says that it has produced many 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 objections that are not very practical. For example, Catamaran states repeatedly that Anchor’s 13 responses are too broad and not narrowed to the parties’ claims or defenses, and it often suggests a 14 further meet and confer. See id. at 16-23. But the undersigned’s standing order also requires a 15 proposed compromise, see Order, ECF No. 40-1 at 2-3, and Catamaran offers none. Catamaran’s 16 approach does not seem geared to resolving disputes but instead makes Anchor think that there are 17 disputes even when maybe there are not any (such as when documents have been produced). 18 19 Given Catamaran’s counsel’s unavailability, the undersigned orders that by August 15, 2013, the following should be produced for the period in dispute in the lawsuit: 20 1. The complete relevant contracts. 21 2. Documents or information regarding Catamaran’s corporate structure insofar as it is relevant 22 to this lawsuit (including responsibility for liabilities) (as opposed to what may not be consequential 23 such as Catamaran’s doing business in other states “with an untold number of entities,” see id. at 10) 24 (RFP Nos. 34-39). 25 26 27 28 3. Claims, payment, and recoupment data and documents relevant to Anchor’s claims and Catamaran’s defenses (RFP Nos. 50-51, 56). 4. Board of Directors’ minutes and agendas regarding the claims, payments, and recoupments at issue in the lawsuit (RFP Nos. 32-33). C 12-05703 WHO (LB) NOTICE OF REFERRAL AND ORDER 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. Financial information showing Catamaran’s current financial condition and net worth (and this may be produced pursuant to the protective order) (RFP Nos. 40-45). 6. Documents regarding the Ace Investigation with respect to the claims, payments, and recoupments at issue in the lawsuit (RFP No. 47). 7. Documents regarding administrative fees recovered by Catamaran that are relevant to the lawsuit (RFP Nos. 52-54). This is meant to be a practical remedy that should not be burdensome if Catamaran really has 8 produced documents. Moreover, it is necessary for the depositions scheduled in August and the 9 September settlement conference, and it is intended to accomplish the discovery plan that should plan within two weeks that included a schedule for depositions and document production to make 12 For the Northern District of California have been formulated by June 26, 2013. See 6/12/13 Order, ECF No. 53 at 2 (directing a discovery 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 the depositions and settlement conference productive). 13 In the future, discovery disputes should be limited to the specific requests and should avoid 14 argument about what the other party has or has not done. Each dispute should be in a separate 15 section starting with the specific request and then followed by the parties’ positions (moving party 16 first). Each party should have a short statement of its position followed by (if necessary) the legal 17 authorities that support the position and then the party’s proposed compromise. 18 CONCLUSION 19 The undersigned orders the productions set forth above by August 15, 2013. If this time line is 20 unrealistic, or if there are burdens, or if there is additional information that the parties want, the 21 parties must meet and confer and submit a joint letter brief that does not contain extraneous 22 argument about delay and obstruction and instead focuses on the fact discovery at issue. 23 This disposes of ECF No. 58. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: August 6, 2013 _______________________________ LAUREL BEELER United States Magistrate Judge 26 27 28 C 12-05703 WHO (LB) NOTICE OF REFERRAL AND ORDER 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?