Murphy v. UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company

Filing 61

ORDER DENYING Transfer Signed by the MDL Panel. (srnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/5/2016)

Case MDL No. 2720 Document 24 Filed 08/05/16 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE: UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., HARVONI
(LEDIPASVIR AND SOFOSBUVIR) HEALTH INSURANCE
LITIGATION

MDL No. 2720

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER
Before the Panel: The UnitedHealth defendants1 move under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize
this litigation in the Southern District of Florida. This litigation currently consists of three actions
pending in three districts, as listed on Schedule A. Plaintiff in the District of Minnesota action
(Pieper) supports centralization, but requests the District of Minnesota. Plaintiffs in the Southern
District of Florida action (Jones) oppose centralization and, alternatively, support centralization in
their district. Plaintiffs in the Northern District of California action (Murphy) oppose transfer of
their action and contend that, in the event an MDL is established, their district should be selected.
The Sutter Health defendants,2 which are named solely in the Murphy action, did not file a response.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we conclude that centralization
is not necessary for the convenience of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and efficient
conduct of the litigation. The actions unquestionably share factual questions arising out of
allegations that the UnitedHealth defendants unlawfully denied coverage for the prescription drug

1

UnitedHealth Group, Inc.; United Healthcare Services, Inc., United Healthcare, Inc.,
Neighborhood Health Partnership, Inc., United Healthcare Life Insurance Co., Optum, Inc.,
OptumRx, Inc., United Healthcare Insurance Company, United Healthcare of Alabama, Inc., United
Healthcare of Arizona, Inc., United Healthcare of Arkansas, Inc., United Healthcare of Colorado,
Inc., United Healthcare of Florida, Inc., United Healthcare of Georgia, Inc., UnitedHealthcare of
Illinois, Inc., United Healthcare of Louisiana, Inc., UnitedHealthcare of the Mid-Atlantic, Inc.,
United Healthcare of the Midlands, Inc., United Healthcare of the Midwest, Inc., United Healthcare
of Mississippi, Inc., United Healthcare of Nevada, Inc., UnitedHealthcare of New Jersey, Inc.,
UnitedHealthcare of New York, Inc., UnitedHealthcare of North Carolina, Inc., United Healthcare
of Tennessee, Inc., United Healthcare of Texas, Inc., United Healthcare of Utah, UnitedHealthcare
of Wisconsin, Inc., UnitedHealthcare of New England, Inc., United Healthcare of Ohio, Inc., United
Healthcare of Oregon, Inc., United Healthcare of Washington, Inc., United Healthcare of Kentucky,
Ltd., United Healthcare Insurance Company of Illinois, United Healthcare Insurance Company of
New York, and United Healthcare Insurance Company of Ohio.
2

Sutter Health, Sutter VNA & Hospice Self-Funded Health Plan, and Sutter Health
Sacramento Sierra Region Self-Funded Health Plan.

Case MDL No. 2720 Document 24 Filed 08/05/16 Page 2 of 4

-2Harvoni to persons with Hepatitis C, and involve overlapping putative classes. But where only a
minimal number of actions are involved, the proponent of centralization bears a heavier burden to
demonstrate that centralization is appropriate. See In re: Transocean Ltd. Sec. Litig. (No. II), 753
F. Supp. 2d 1373, 1374 (J.P.M.L. 2010). Moving defendants have failed to do so here.
There are only three actions in this litigation, and the number of involved plaintiffs’ counsel
is correspondingly limited. The UnitedHealth defendants are represented by common counsel, who
are well-positioned to coordinate the litigation across the three groups of plaintiffs’ counsel.
Additionally, one action (Murphy) raises case-specific factual and legal issues concerning certain
California self-funded plans and an allegedly new pharmacy benefits manager (MedImpact), retained
in place of a UnitedHealth entity, to administer prescription drug coverage.3 These case-specific
issues are likely to undermine the alleged efficiencies that could be gained from centralizing an
already minimal number of actions.4
Given the few involved counsel, the limited number of actions, and the presence of
significant non-overlapping issues in one action, informal coordination of discovery and pretrial
motions is practicable and preferable to centralization. Various mechanisms are available to
minimize or eliminate the possibility of duplicative discovery even without an MDL. Notices of
deposition can be filed in all related actions; the parties can stipulate that any discovery relevant to
more than one action can be used in all those actions; or the involved courts may direct the parties
to coordinate their pretrial activities. See In re Eli Lilly & Co. (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent
Litig., 446 F. Supp. 242, 244 (J.P.M.L. 1978); see also Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth,
§ 20.14 (2004).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for centralization of these actions is denied.

3

The Murphy plaintiffs allege that they resubmitted claims for Harvoni coverage after the
Sutter defendants retained MedImpact, and that MedImpact denied the claims under its own policies.
4

The filing of additional actions seems unlikely considering that the UnitedHealth
defendants revised their Harvoni coverage guidelines in January 2016 to eliminate the alleged liver
scarring criteria that are the focus of plaintiffs’ actions.

Case MDL No. 2720 Document 24 Filed 08/05/16 Page 3 of 4

-3PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Sarah S. Vance
Chair
Marjorie O. Rendell
Lewis A. Kaplan
R. David Proctor

Charles A. Breyer
Ellen Segal Huvelle
Catherine D. Perry

Case MDL No. 2720 Document 24 Filed 08/05/16 Page 4 of 4

IN RE: UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., HARVONI
(LEDIPASVIR AND SOFOSBUVIR) HEALTH INSURANCE
LITIGATION

MDL No. 2720

SCHEDULE A
Northern District of California
MURPHY v. UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:15-03799
Southern District of Florida
JONES v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 0:15-61144
District of Minnesota
PIEPER v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED, ET AL., C.A. No. 0:16-00687