Cave Consulting Group, Inc. v. Truven Health Analytics Inc.

Filing 234

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 5/24/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CAVE CONSULTING GROUP, INC.,

8

Plaintiff,

9

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY

v.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 215, 217

10

TRUVEN HEALTH ANALYTICS INC.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 15-cv-02177-SI

Defendant.

12
13

The parties have submitted two discovery disputes to the Court.

The first concerns

14

plaintiff’s request that defendant be required to respond fully to plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 21.

15

That interrogatory asks, “Identify each Truven customer who has used Advantage Suite to perform

16

an efficiency (cost) profile to compare physicians of a particular specialty type on the basis of cost

17

per episode.” Defendant’s responses to this interrogatory have been framed in terms of identifying

18

customers who have “generated a physician efficiency score,” or by incorporating responses to

19

other interrogatories and requests for production of documents.

20

Plaintiff contends that defendant’s responses are inadequate because the interrogatory did

21

not use the concept of a “physician efficiency score,” and that by using this phrase in its responses

22

defendant has improperly narrowed the interrogatory. Plaintiff also asserts that defendant cannot

23

respond to Interrogatory No. 21 through reference to other discovery responses because the other

24

discovery requests were directed at different information, and because the other discovery

25

responses referred to hundreds of allegedly responsive documents. Plaintiff seeks an order

26

directing defendant to respond to Interrogatory No. 21 as written.

27

Defendant responds that it has repeatedly provided a straightforward answer to the

28

interrogatory, and that “the answer has always been that Truven does not know of any such

1

customers.” Dkt. No. 215 at 4. Defendant also asserts that plaintiff has questioned nearly all of

2

defendant’s witnesses on this issue, and that all of the witnesses have testified that they are not

3

aware of any Truven customers using Advantage Suite in a manner potentially covered by the

4

claims of the ‘726 patent.

5

Based upon defendant’s representations in the parties’ joint letter brief, it is not clear that

6

there is an actual dispute between the parties (or if there is one, that it could not have been

7

resolved through the meet and confer process). In any event, because defendant’s responses have

8

used the phrase “physician efficiency score,” which is not used in the interrogatory itself, the

9

Court directs defendant to respond to Interrogatory No. 21 as it is written. Defendant shall

10

provide a supplemental response no later than June 2, 2017.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

The second discovery dispute concerns plaintiff’s request that defendant be required to

12

produce documents relating to its own practice of physician efficiency measurement and to

13

provide a Rule 30(b)(6) witness to testify about the same.

14

depositions, “it has emerged that Truven has also been conducting physician efficiency

15

measurement internally, with the objective of ‘overhauling’ or replacing its existing efficiency

16

measurement methodologies.”

17

defendant’s internal use of physician efficiency methods is relevant because (1) it likely

18

constitutes direct infringement; (2) defendant’s recognition of the benefits of “Marketbaskets” and

19

other attributes claimed in the ‘726 patent is evidence of the novelty and inventiveness of the

20

patent claims; and (3) defendant’s “migration in the direction of CCGroup’s patent claims is

21

relevant to the value of the claimed technology.” Id.

Dkt. No. 217 at 1.

Plaintiff states that in recent

Plaintiff asserts that discovery about

22

Defendant responds that it provided information regarding its internal use of Advantage

23

Suite for basic methodological research purposes in December 2016, five months before the close

24

of fact discovery. Defendant asserts that “[i]f this basic methodology research – not incorporated

25

in any Truven product, let alone an accused product – were relevant to this lawsuit, CCGroup

26

could have diligently pursued discovery months ago, including seeking this Court’s intervention if

27

necessary. Instead, CCGroup did not even discuss this matter with Truven until May 3: five days

28

after the close of fact discovery.” Id. at 4. Defendant also asserts that if plaintiff wants to argue
2

1

that defendant’s internal use of physician efficiency methods constitutes direct infringement and is

2

evidence of the inventiveness and value of the claimed technology, plaintiff may make these

3

arguments based on the documentary and testimonial discovery it already has.

4

The Court agrees with defendant that plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause to reopen

5

fact discovery on this matter. On this record, the Court finds that plaintiff has not been diligent in

6

pursuing discovery regarding this internal Truven project. Further, the discovery sought appears

7

to be of limited relevance in light of the fact that Truven’s internal research methodologies have

8

not been incorporated into any Truven product, and in any event, plaintiff already has some

9

discovery on this issue. Accordingly, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s request to compel further

10

discovery.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14
15

Dated: May 24, 2017

______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3