Rheumatology Diagnostics Laboratory, Inc et al v. Blue Shield of California Life & Health Insurance Company

Filing 178

ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTE re 176 and 177 Letters. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 08/08/2014. The plaintiffs' request for production of documents is DENIED. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/8/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

RHEUMATOLOGY DIAGNOSTICS
LABORATORY, INC, et al.,
v.

Plaintiffs,

AETNA, INC., et al.,

Case No. 12-cv-05847-WHO
ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTE
Re: Dkt. No. 176

Defendants.

12
13

On August 6, 2014, the plaintiffs and defendants Quest Diagnostics, Inc., and Quest

14

Diagnostic Clinical Laboratories, Inc. (“Quest”), filed a joint discovery letter. The parties dispute

15

whether Quest must respond to the plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents Set Two No.

16

39, which asks for all documents that Quest produced to the California Attorney General’s Office

17

in the case of State of California ex rel. Hunter Laboratories v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., No. CIV

18

34-2009-48046, and its investigation.

19

The plaintiffs argue that the information requested is relevant to their claims because the

20

Attorney General’s complaint substantially overlaps with the claims in this action and because

21

“there is very little burden in producing it.” Letter 2. Quest responds that the information

22

requested is irrelevant because the plaintiffs’ claims in this action only go back to November 2008,

23

but the last production made to the Attorney General occurred in October 2007, and Quest has

24

already agreed to turn over documents from as early as January 2007. Quest asserts that the

25

Attorney General’s investigation considered conduct back to 1995, and focused on payments from

26

California’s Medi-Cal program and on clinical pathology, while Medi-Cal is not an issue here and

27

anatomic pathology services, not clinical pathology, are. Moreover, Quest points to the burden of

28

having to reassemble and produce the requested information.

1

The plaintiffs’ request for production of documents is DENIED. At this juncture, the

2

plaintiffs have not shown a sufficient need for the documents such that Quest should be burdened

3

with producing documents extending many years prior to the start of its potential liability to the

4

plaintiffs for a significantly narrower claim. Quest’s liability only goes back to November 2008,

5

and Quest has already agreed to produce documents dating back to January 2007. Of course, the

6

plaintiffs are entitled to show that Quest’s behavior “are part of a long-standing and widespread

7

business practice,” Letter 2, but the manner of doing so must be proportionate and reasonable.

8

Quest correctly concedes that “there is some overlap between the California investigation and this

9

case,” Letter 4, but I am not persuaded that the proposed discovery’s likely benefit outweighs the
necessary burden or expenses given the current needs of the case. See FED. R. CIV. P.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

26(b)(2)(C)(iii).

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 8, 2014
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2