Corcoran et al v. CVS Health Corporation

Filing 548

PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 6 RE: FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 6/3/2021. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/3/2021)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

CHRISTOPHER CORCORAN, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,

7

PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 6 RE: FINAL
PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

vs.

8
9

CASE NO. 15-cv-03504-YGR

CVS PHARMACY, INC.,

10

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

TO ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD:

13

Having considered the filings to date and the arguments and other submissions at the final

14

pretrial conference held on June 2, 2021, for good cause shown the Court enters the following

15

orders:

16
17

1. CVS’S EXPEDITED MOTION TO DECERTIFY THE FLORIDA AND NEW YORK CLASSES:
The day prior to the final pretrial conference, CVS filed a motion seeking decertification of

18

the Florida and New York classes “on the grounds that the class representatives for Florida

19

(Debbie Barrett and Robert Jenks) and New York (Stephen Sullivan) no longer satisfy Federal

20

Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 23(a)(4)’s ‘adequacy’ requirement” because they are unable

21

and/or unwilling to testify in person or by remote means. (Dkt. No. 541.) The Court ordered

22

plaintiffs to respond forthwith. In their opposition filed on the morning of the conference,

23

plaintiffs contend that the representatives’ medical unavailability does not provide a basis to

24

decertify. (Dkt. No. 542.) Plaintiffs point to the representatives’ deposition testimony taken in

25

this case and Rule 32(a)(4)’s provision for the use of such testimony due to “trial absences for

26

reasons of infirmity and illness.” Plaintiffs also submit sworn declarations by Florida

27

representative Debbie Barrett and New York representative Stephen Sullivan attesting to their

28

serious medical circumstances. (Dkt. Nos. 542-2, 542-3.)

1

In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that Ms. Barrett and Mr. Sullivan are unavailable

2

under FRCP 32(a)(4) and permits their deposition testimony for use at trial. Mr. Jenks has not

3

provided an adequate explanation to the Court, and counsel for plaintiffs indicated at the

4

conference that he could testify via Zoom if he must. The Court therefore finds that Mr. Jenks is

5

available but permits his testimony at trial by remote means in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.

6

Because the Court does not find that medical unavailability is a basis for decertification, CVS’s

7

motion to decertify the Florida and New York classes is DENIED.

8

10

On April 16, 2021, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking an order excluding, inter alia,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

2. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OBTAINED BY CVS IN
OTHER LITIGATION

deposition testimony of Joseph Zavalishin on behalf of OptumRx obtained by CVS in Sheet Metal

12

Worker Local No. 20 Welfare and Benefit Fund v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 1:16-cv- 00046-WES-

13

PAS (D.R.I.) (“Sheet Metal”). (Dkt. No. 496.) Plaintiffs contend that the designated excerpts

14

from such testimony taken in April 2019 are inadmissible hearsay that do not qualify as an

15

exception under Federal Rule of Evidence (“FRE”) 804(b)(1) nor may be used at trial under FRCP

16

32(a)(8). The Court deferred ruling on the motion as to Mr. Zavalishin “until issues of availability

17

are resolved either at the time of trial or by agreement.” (Pretrial Order No. 4 at 9.) At the

18

conference, the parties represented that they had agreed that OptumRx is unavailable for purposes

19

of FRE 804(b)(1).

20

FRE 804(b)(1) provides a hearsay exception for former testimony:

21

Testimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different
proceeding, or in a deposition taken in compliance with law in the course of the
same or another proceeding, if the party against whom the testimony is now
offered, or, in a civil action or proceeding, a predecessor in interest, had an
opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or
redirect examination.

22
23
24
25
26

Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(1). CVS contends that the Sheet Metal plaintiffs are “predecessors in

27

interest” of plaintiffs here in light of the subject matter of the two cases and their shared motives in

28

cross-examining OptumRx. The Court agrees.
2

1

Under the FRE 804(b)(1), “predecessor in interest” is meant to be read generously where a

2

former action involved a party with similar motives to cross-examine as the present party on

3

similar issues. See Culver v. Asbestos Defendants (BP), No. 10-CV-3484 (SI), 2010 WL 5094698,

4

at *4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2010) (adopting interpretation of Third, Fourth, and Sixth Circuits that

5

Rule 804’s “predecessor in interest” limitation is meant to be read generously where former suit

6

involved a party with similar motivation to cross-examine on similar issues as the present party);

7

Wright & Miller, FED. PRAC. & PROC. EVID. § 7073 (2014 ed.) (“courts have interpreted the

8

phrase predecessor in interest to extend beyond privity to encompass parties sharing a ‘community

9

of interest.’”).

10

The Sheet Metal action was filed by third-party payors alleging that CVS and five

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

pharmacy benefit mangers (“PBMs”), including OptumRx, engaged in a scheme to overcharge the

12

third-party payors in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and

13

various state laws. (See Sheet Metal, No. 16-CV-46 (WES) (D.R.I. filed May 4, 2016), First

14

Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 81.) Specifically, the Sheet Metal plaintiffs alleged that CVS

15

defrauded and overcharged the health plans in failing to treat its Health Savings Pass membership

16

prices as its Usual and Customary prices when reporting U&C prices to the PBMs. Accordingly,

17

plaintiffs’ contention that “the Sheet Metal plaintiffs have different legal theories and motives in

18

questioning the PBMs” does not persuade. (Dkt. No. 496 at 6.)

19

Indeed, at the conference, plaintiffs’ counsel appeared to concede that counsel for the Sheet

20

Metal plaintiffs, who are members of a national well-respected plaintiffs firm, conducted a

21

meaningful cross-examination of another PBM but for whatever reason “limited their cross

22

examination [of Zavalishin] to a handful of questions that are not relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims

23

here.” (Id.) The standard is not whether plaintiffs believe counsel for the Sheet Metal plaintiffs

24

could have more effectively cross-examined the Mr. Zavalishin. Rather, the relevant question is

25

whether the Sheet Metal plaintiffs “had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the

26

testimony” in their case. The Court finds that they did and thereby concludes that Mr.

27

Zavalishin’s deposition testimony in the Sheet Metal case qualifies as a hearsay exception under

28

FRE 804(b)(1). Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion to exclude this testimony is DENIED.
3

3. DISPUTED DISCOVERY RESPONSE DESIGNATIONS

1
2

The Court’s Standing Order re: Pretrial Instructions in Civil Case explicitly advises parties

3

that it “will not resolve more than six pages of disputed excerpts.” The Order does not distinguish

4

between “excerpts from depositions, from interrogatory answers, or from responses to requests for

5

admission.” Although the parties already submitted six pages of deposition designation objections

6

on which the Court ruled, it has disregarded the Court’s Standing Order by filing additional

7

objections (this time, for discovery responses) for the Court to resolve.
Notwithstanding, the Court has reviewed the second set of disputes and makes the

8
9

following rulings. The Court OVERRULES defendant’s objections to its responses to requests for
admissions on the grounds of vagueness. Defendant clarifies the ambiguity in its responses.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

However, to the extent used, the rule of completeness requires that the entire response to any

12

request be used.

13

The Court SUSTAINS defendant’s objections to its responses to requests for admissions to

14

the extent that they imply that defendant has a duty to disclose. The Court has already ruled that

15

“as no affirmative duty to disclose exists, plaintiffs are prohibited from suggesting otherwise.”

16

(Pretrial Order No. 1 at 9.) That said, the Court will evaluate the use of the evidence at the time of

17

proffer.

18

The Court SUSTAINS defendant’s hearsay objections to plaintiff Steven Sullivan’s use of

19

his own interrogatory responses as affirmative evidence. See Avila v. Willits Envtl. Remediation

20

Trust, No. 99-CV-3941 (SI), 2008 WL 360858, at *19 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2008) (“To the extent

21

plaintiffs have submitted these interrogatory responses for the truth of the matter asserted, the

22

Court finds that the responses are hearsay.”); Polymer Plastics Corp. v. Hartford Casualty Ins.

23

Co., No. 05-CV-143 (ECR), 2007 WL 9677059, at *4 (D. Nev. Aug. 27, 2007) (“To the extent

24

that Polymer seeks to rely on the interrogatories as evidence of the truth of the matter asserted

25

therein, the interrogatories are inadmissible hearsay. See Fed. R. Ev. 801. Hartford has not

26

waived its objection to the admission of Polymer's interrogatory answers for the truth of the matter

27

asserted therein.”).

28

//
4

1
2

4. TRIAL EXHIBITS
The Court heard arguments concerning representative samples of exhibits submitted by the

3

parties for discussion. Plaintiffs submitted documents regarding Caremark, ScriptSave, and state

4

Medicaid. CVS submitted documents regarding the Texas investigation and litigation, Dr. Hay’s

5

1st percentile opinion, and pre-HSP launch brainstorming/development. With respect to Dr. Hay’s

6

1st percentile opinion, the analysis of which plaintiffs seek to use in establishing liability, the

7

Court finds that such use would be highly prejudicial and, therefore, Dr. Hay’s analysis in this

8

regard shall be excluded. For all other categories of documents discussed at the conference, the

9

Court will consider the exhibits on a case-by-case basis.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

5. JURY INSTRUCTIONS
As discussed at the conference, the parties shall have until next week, that is, no later than

12

Thursday, June 10, 2021, to submit a revised set of proposed jury instructions. As part of the

13

revisions, the parties shall provide the Court with the pattern jury instructions for each state’s

14

consumer protection state without annotation by the parties.

15
16

6. JURY SELECTION
The Court received the parties’ recommendations and stipulations to excuse potential

17

jurors based on their responses to interrogatories. Having considered the parties’

18

recommendations, and based on the Court’s own evaluation, the Court excused jurors numbered 5,

19

8, 10, 11, 16, 17, 23, 32, 34, 37, 38, 45, 51, 54, 59, and 60. In addition, the Court is awaiting

20

further information from juror numbered 6 to verify the hardship request.

21

Due to the COVID-19 protocols the Court has in place, jury selection will be conducted in

22

waves of 20 prospective jurors. The Court previously ordered that each side will be afforded four

23

peremptory challenges. (Pretrial Order No. 3.) Time permitting, challenges for cause must be

24

made immediately after each wave. Once the Court is comfortable with the prospective pool,

25

peremptory challenges and any additional hardship decision will be conducted outside the

26

presence of the jury.

27
28

During voir dire, counsel will be allowed to use the bathrooms in the jury room so that
they do not share the facilities with the jurors. Counsel may not linger in the jury room or use any
5

1

exit door other than the one leading to the courtroom.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3

This terminates Docket Number 541.

4
5
6

Dated: June 3, 2021
______________________________________
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
6