Corcoran et al v. CVS Health Corporation
Filing
371
ORDERS UPON NINTH CIRCUIT OPINION AND TRIAL SETTING ORDER. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 8/23/2019. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/23/2019)
1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5
CHRISTOPHER CORCORAN, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
6
7
vs.
8
ORDERS UPON NINTH CIRCUIT OPINION
AND TRIAL SETTING ORDER
CVS HEALTH, ET AL.,
9
CASE NO. 15-cv-03504-YGR
Defendants.
10
On September 5, 2017, this Court granted in part plaintiffs’ motion for class certification
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
and granted defendant CVS’s motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 327.) The Court entered
12
judgment in favor of CVS on September 13, 2017 (Dkt. No. 339) and plaintiffs timely appealed.
13
The Ninth Circuit reversed all of the Court’s findings and remanded the action for further
14
proceedings.
15
Based on the Ninth’s Circuit’s opinion, the Court ORDERS as follows:
16
First, whereas the Court GRANTED IN PART plaintiffs’ motion for class certification,
17
certifying a California, Florida, Illinois, and Massachusetts class, but limited only to the PBM that
18
adjudicated each class representative’s claim and that limitation was reversed by the Ninth Circuit,
19
the Court HEREBY CERTIFIES the following class without limitation:
20
21
22
23
24
All CVS customers in California, Florida, Illinois, and Massachusetts, who, between
November 2008 and July 31, 2015 (the “Class Period”), (1) purchased one or more generic
prescription drugs that were offered through CVS’s Health Savings Pass (“HSP”) program
at the time of the purchase; (2) were insured for the purchase(s) through a third-party
payor plan administered by one of the following pharmacy benefit managers:
Caremark/PCS, Express Scripts, Medco, MedImpact, or Optum/Prescription
Solutions (prior to January 29, 2015); and (3) paid CVS an out-of-pocket payment for the
purchase greater than the HSP price for the prescription.
25
Second, whereas the Court GRANTED IN PART defendants’ motion to exclude certain opinions by
26
Dr. Hay and to strike Dr. Hay’s opinion that CVS’s Health Savings Pass (“HSP”) prices are the
27
“Usual and Customary” (“U&C”) prices as defined in CVS’s contracts and was reversed by the
28
Ninth Circuit, the Court HEREBY DENIES the motion to exclude and strike.
1
Third, whereas the Court GRANTED defendants’ motion for summary judgment finding no
2
triable issue of fact exists with regard to whether CVS misrepresented its U&C price to the PBMs
3
and the Ninth Circuit reversed, the Court HEREBY DENIES the motion for summary judgment.
4
Based thereon, the Court finds that with those holdings, the parties are returned to the
5
posture of the case in September 2017, except with the holdings changed as noted, and as is
6
standard practice sets a trial date with related deadlines. The Court does not authorize a second
7
summary judgment motion or re-briefing on class certification. 1
8
9
In that regard, in September 2017, the Court DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE plaintiffs’
motion to certify a New York and Arizona class because the evidence showed that the proffered
plaintiffs did not have any “transactions adjudicated by any of the five PBMs at issue for purposes
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
of class certification during the Class Period.” Having denied the motion without prejudice, and in
12
light of the procedural posture of the case, the Court will allow a limited period of time for
13
plaintiffs to identify an appropriate plaintiff and appropriate discovery and motion practice.
14
Based on the foregoing, the Court further ORDERS as follows, as slightly modified:
September 9, 2019
16
FILING DEADLINE FOR MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE
CLASS REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE NEW YORK &
ARIZONA CLASSED
17
DEADLINE TO FILE A PROPOSED NOTICE PLAN
September 16, 2019
DEADLINE TO FILE ANY OPPOSITION TO EITHER THE
MOTION OR NOTICE PLAN
October 7, 2019
DEADLINE TO FILE A REPLY ISO MOTION AND
NOTICE PLAN
October 21, 2019
HEARING ON PROPOSED NOTICE
November 5, 2019 @ 1:00 p.m.
DISSEMINATION OF CLASS NOTICE
Two Weeks from the date of the Court’s
decision
15
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
The Court notes that during the case management conference on August 19, 2019,
defendant indicated that the Court had not addressed certain elements of class certification in the
September 2017 order. In the September 2017 order, the Court explained that it did not address
certain of defendant’s arguments because, either it had previously rejected them and so, for the
same reasons, did so again (see Dkt. No. 327 at 7 n.4, 8), or the arguments were mooted by the
Court’s decisions elsewhere within the September 2017 order (see id. at 10-11).
2
1
REFERRED FOR PRIVATE MEDIATION TO BE
COMPLETED BY:
December 6, 2019
COMPLIANCE HEARING (SEE BELOW)
February 28, 2020 at 9:01 a.m.
JOINT PRETRIAL CONFERENCE STATEMENT:
March 20, 2020
6
PRETRIAL CONFERENCE:
March 27, 2020
7
TRIAL DATE AND LENGTH:
Jury Selection: April 15, 2020
Openings & Evidence: April 20, 2020
2
3
4
5
8
(Presumptively 45 hours, jointly split,
including openings and closing)
9
Pursuant to the Court’s Pretrial Instructions in Civil Cases at Section 2, trial counsel shall
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
meet and confer in advance of the Pretrial Conference. The compliance hearing on Friday,
12
February 28, 2020 at 9:01 a.m. is intended to confirm that counsel have reviewed the Court’s
13
Pretrial Setting Instructions and are in compliance therewith. The compliance hearing shall be
14
held in the Federal Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California, in Courtroom 1. Five (5)
15
business days prior to the date of the compliance hearing, the parties shall file a one-page JOINT
16
STATEMENT confirming they have complied with this requirement or explaining their failure to
17
comply. If compliance is complete, the parties need not appear and the compliance hearing will be
18
taken off calendar. Telephonic appearances will be allowed if the parties have submitted a joint
19
statement in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in sanctions.
As set forth above, the parties are REFERRED to private mediation. A compliance hearing
20
21
shall be held on Friday, September 27, 2019 on the Court's 9:01a.m. calendar, in the Federal
22
Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California, in Courtroom 1. The parties shall provide the
23
Court with the name of an agreed-upon mediator by September 20, 2019 by filing a JOINT
24
Notice. Also by September 20, 2019, plaintiffs shall file form orders regarding any dismissals by
25
certain defendants. If compliance is complete, the parties need not appear and the compliance
26
hearing will be taken off calendar. Telephonic appearances will be allowed if the parties have
27
submitted a joint statement in a timely fashion.
28
\\
3
1
The parties must comply with both the Court’s Standing Order in Civil Cases and Standing
2
Order for Pretrial Instructions in Civil Cases for additional deadlines and procedures. All
3
Standing Orders are available on the Court’s website at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ygrorders.
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
Dated: August 23, 2019
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?