Steward Health Care System LLC et al v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island

Filing 154

ORDER dismissing 128 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court re: 126 Order on Motion to Compel. So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 1/10/2017. (Jackson, Ryan)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND ___________________________________ ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD OF ) RHODE ISLAND, ) ) Defendant. ) ___________________________________) STEWARD HEALTH CARE SYSTEM LLC, et al., C.A. No. 13-405 S ORDER WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge. Before the Court is Defendant’s appeal from Magistrate Judge Lincoln D. Almond’s August 4th, 2016 Memorandum and Order denying Defendant Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island’s (“BCBSRI”) motion to compel the production of documents from Plaintiff Steward Health Care System LLC (“Steward”). (ECF No. 128.) BCBSRI had sought to compel Steward to produce all of the written communications that Steward withheld on the basis of the common interest doctrine. (Mot. to Compel Produc. from Pl. 1, ECF No. 111.) of them) were (“Landmark”) and These written communications (approximately 3,000 Landmark between Special Steward Master, employees and the Landmark Special (collectively, Medical Master’s the Center’s consultant, “Special Master Parties”). (Mem. of Law in Supp. of Obj. to Mem. and Order (“Obj.”) 1-2, ECF No. 128.) Magistrate Judge Almond concluded that Steward and the Special Master Parties shared “a common legal interest in the operation of Landmark and the consummation of the acquisition during the periods when the [Asset Purchase Agreements] were in place.” (Mem. and Order 2-3, ECF No. 126.) Magistrate Judge Almond also concluded that an agreement that enabled Steward Landmark during to participate the in acquisition the daily process management “reflect[ed] of an interrelationship and commonality of interest well beyond just being parties to a pending acquisition.” (Id. at 3.) BCBSRI contends that Magistrate Judge Almond’s conclusions were clearly wrong because the common interest doctrine cannot serve as a shield against the production communications. (Obj. 9, 11, ECF No. 128.) of these written BCBSRI asserts that, because Steward has not yet produced any communications that reveal its Landmark, reasons the for withheld withdrawing from communications the must acquisition contain reasons for Steward’s withdrawal. (Id. at 2.) the of true The Court is sympathetic to BCBSRI’s frustration, but its role in this appeal is circumscribed by 28 U.S.C. § 636. A district judge may only reconsider a magistrate judge’s pretrial ruling “where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). 28 The Court “must accept both the [magistrate judge’s] findings of 2 fact and the scrutinizing conclusions the entire drawn record, therefrom [it] unless, ‘form[s] a after strong, unyielding belief that a mistake has been made.’” Phinney v. Wentworth Douglas Hosp., 199 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1999) (quoting Cumpiano v. Banco Santander P.R., 902 F.2d 148, 152 (1st Cir. 1990)). “The common-interest doctrine . . . is ‘not an independent basis for privilege, but an exception to the general rule that the attorney-client privilege is waived when privileged information is disclosed to a third party.’” Cavallaro v. United States, 284 F.3d 236, 250 (1st Cir. 2002) (quoting E.S. Epstein, The Attorney–Client Privilege and the Work–Product Doctrine 196 (4th ed. 2001)). “The common-interest doctrine prevents clients from waiving the attorney-client privilege when attorney-client communications are shared with a third person who has a common legal interest with respect to these communications . . . .” Id. “The common-interest doctrine is typically understood to apply ‘[w]hen two or more clients consult or retain an attorney on particular matters of common interest’” or when a client or client’s lawyer communicates with another lawyer representing a different party in a matter of common interest. Id. at 249-50 (quoting 3 Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 503.21[1], [2] (J.M. McLaughlin, ed., 2d ed. 2002)). After carefully considering the record in this case, there is simply no basis for the Court to conclude that Magistrate 3 Judge Almond clearly erred when he concluded that Steward and the Special Master Parties shared a common legal interest at the time that the written communications that BCBSRI seeks to compel were exchanged. The Court acknowledges the “pivotal role that magistrate judges play in overseeing the conduct of the sort of complex pretrial discovery typified by this case,” Ferring Pharm. Inc. v. Braintree Labs., Inc., 168 F. Supp. 3d 355, 358 (D. Mass. 2016) (quoting Gargiulo v. Baystate Health Inc., 279 F.R.D. 62, 64 (D. Mass. 2012)), so it may not second-guess the magistrate judge’s pre-trial discovery rulings because a different conclusion could have been drawn. See Harvard Pilgrim Health Care of New England v. Thompson, 318 F. Supp. 2d 1, 6 (D.R.I. 2004). The Court therefore DISMISSES BCBSRI’s Appeal from Magistrate Judge Almond’s Memorandum and Order denying BCBSRI’s Motion to Compel the production of documents from Steward. (ECF No. 128.) IT IS SO ORDERED. William E. Smith Chief Judge Date: January 10, 2017 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?