K. et al v. United Behavioral Health et al
Filing
69
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's 64 Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery; and granting in part and denying in part the parties' 68 Stipulated Motion to Stay Amended Scheduling Order. The parties shall submit a proposed scheduling order to the court within 14 days of the date of this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett on 7/22/2020. (eat)
Case 2:17-cv-01328-DAK-JCB Document 69 Filed 07/22/20 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 847
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH
D.K., K.K, and A.K.,
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No. 2:17-cv-01328-DAK-JCB
UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH and
ALCATEL-LUCENT MEDICAL
EXPENSE PLAN FOR ACTIVE
MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES,
District Judge Dale A. Kimball
Defendants.
Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett
This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A). 1 Due to Judge Warner’s retirement, this case is now referred to Magistrate Judge
Jared C. Bennett. 2 Before the court are: (1) Plaintiffs D.K., K.K., and A.K’s (collectively,
“Plaintiffs”) Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery; 3 and (2) the parties’ Stipulated Motion to
Stay Amended Scheduling Order. 4 The court has carefully reviewed the written memoranda
submitted by the parties. Under DUCivR 7-1(f), the court has concluded that oral argument is
not necessary and, therefore, decides the motions on the written memoranda.
1
ECF No. 61.
2
ECF No. 67.
3
ECF No. 64.
4
ECF No. 68.
Case 2:17-cv-01328-DAK-JCB Document 69 Filed 07/22/20 Page 2 of 8 PageID# 848
RELEVANT BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs’ third amended complaint asserts a cause of action under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act and a cause of action under the Mental Health Parity and
Addiction Equity Act (“Parity Act”). 5 Defendants United Behavioral Health (“UBH”) and the
Nokia Medical Expense Plan for Management Employees (formerly Alcatel-Lucent Medical
Expense Plan for Active Management Employees) (“Plan”) (collectively, “Defendants”) moved
to dismiss, among other things, Plaintiffs’ Parity Act claim. 6
In a Memorandum Decision and Order dated January 17, 2020 (“January 17 Order”),
Judge Kimball denied the dismissal of the Parity Act claim. 7 In the final portion of his analysis
denying dismissal, Judge Kimball stated:
As a final matter, “[t]he nature of Parity Act claims is that they generally require
further discovery to evaluate whether there is a disparity between the availability
of treatments for mental health and substance abuse disorders and treatment for
medical/surgical conditions.” It is for that reason that “[c]ourts in this jurisdiction
favor permitting Parity Act claims to proceed to discovery to obtain evidence
regarding a properly pleaded coverage disparity.” 8
Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery. 9 In the
discovery requests that are disputed in the instant motion, Plaintiffs seek from January 1, 2013 to
the present: (1) information about Defendants’ administration of medical/surgical claims;
5
ECF No. 39.
6
ECF No. 42.
7
ECF No. 59.
8
Id. at 10 (citations omitted) (alterations in original).
9
ECF No. 64.
2
Case 2:17-cv-01328-DAK-JCB Document 69 Filed 07/22/20 Page 3 of 8 PageID# 849
(2) information about residential treatment coverage criteria; (3) information that Defendants
claim is confidential, proprietary, and business-sensitive; (4) information about hospice care
coverage criteria; and (5) information about the processing of claims for certain types of
programs/facilities and about policies and plans unrelated to the Plan. Defendants oppose
Plaintiffs’ motion. 10 The parties later filed their Stipulated Motion to Stay Amended Scheduling
Order. 11
ANALYSIS
Based upon the following analysis, the court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs’
Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery. Accordingly, the parties’ Stipulated Motion to Stay
Amended Scheduling Order is also granted in part and denied in part. Each motion is addressed
in turn below.
I.
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery
Plaintiffs contend that discovery is appropriate on their Parity Act claim and that the
discovery they seek is relevant to that claim. The court agrees that discovery is appropriate on
Plaintiffs’ Parity Act claim. Additionally, with one exception, the court agrees that the discovery
Plaintiffs seek is relevant and proportional. Below is the analysis for both rulings.
A.
Discovery Is Appropriate on Plaintiffs’ Parity Act Claim.
Defendants argue that discovery is inappropriate on Plaintiffs’ Parity Act claim.
However, in the January 17 Order, Judge Kimball clearly stated that discovery was appropriate
10
ECF No. 65.
11
ECF No. 68.
3
Case 2:17-cv-01328-DAK-JCB Document 69 Filed 07/22/20 Page 4 of 8 PageID# 850
and necessary on that claim. Thus, Defendants’ argument on this point must fail. Consistent
with the January 17 Order, discovery will be permitted on Plaintiffs’ Parity Act claim.
B.
With One Exception, the Discovery Plaintiffs Seek Is Relevant and
Proportional.
In response to Plaintiffs’ motion, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ requested discovery is
neither relevant nor proportional to the needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Specifically,
Defendants contend: (1) UBH cannot respond to discovery concerning the administration of
medical/surgical claims; (2) Plaintiffs seek information for an impermissibly broad and
disproportional timeframe; (3) Defendants should not be required to respond to discovery
requests about residential treatment coverage criteria because that information has already been
produced in the administrative record; (4) Defendants should not be required to respond to
discovery requests that seek confidential, proprietary, and business-sensitive information that is
intended for internal use only; (5) Plaintiffs are not entitled to discovery on the topic of hospice
care; and (6) Plaintiffs are not entitled to discovery on certain types of programs/facilities or on
policies and plans unrelated to the Plan. The court addresses each argument below.
1.
The Plan Can Respond to Discovery Concerning the Administration
of Medical/Surgical Claims.
Defendants contend that they cannot respond to any discovery directed at the
administration of medical/surgical claims because UBH administers only the Plan’s mental
health and chemical dependency claims and, therefore, does not have any documents or
information concerning the administration of medical/surgical claims. However, Plaintiffs
correctly note that the proposed discovery related to medical/surgical claims is directed not only
at UBH, but also the Plan. Importantly, Defendants do not argue that the Plan is unable to
4
Case 2:17-cv-01328-DAK-JCB Document 69 Filed 07/22/20 Page 5 of 8 PageID# 851
respond to the proposed discovery on medical/surgical claims. Furthermore, according to
Plaintiffs, the Plan provides benefits for mental health and substance abuse claims, as well as
medical/surgical claims. Thus, the court concludes that the Plan can respond to the discovery
related to medical/surgical claims. 12
2.
Plaintiffs Have Agreed to Limit Discovery to Defendants’ Requested
Timeframe.
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ request for discovery from January 1, 2013, to the
present is impermissibly broad and not proportional to the needs of the case because the
residential treatment at issue in this case occurred in 2014. In their reply, Plaintiffs have agreed
to limit their discovery requests to the timeframe of 2014 to the present. Because the parties
appear to agree on the appropriate timeframe, the court orders production based on the
agreed-upon timeframe.
3.
Defendants Can Reference the Administrative Record for Any
Discovery Requests for Residential Treatment Coverage Criteria.
Defendants assert that they should not be required to respond to discovery requests about
the residential treatment coverage criteria UHB used to review Plaintiffs’ claim for benefits
because such information has already been produced in the administrative record. In their reply,
Plaintiffs do not respond to Defendants’ argument. Nevertheless, the court will allow the
discovery requests on this topic. However, if relevant documents have already been produced in
12
Defendants also argue in a footnote that the coverage guidelines for medical/surgical claims
have always been available to Plaintiffs by way of the Plan’s website. That argument is without
merit. As Plaintiffs correctly argue, while such information may be available through the Plan’s
current website, that does not mean that those coverage guidelines were in place during the time
that the claim at issue in this lawsuit was evaluated.
5
Case 2:17-cv-01328-DAK-JCB Document 69 Filed 07/22/20 Page 6 of 8 PageID# 852
the administrative record, Defendants may simply reference the relevant portions of the
administrative record in their response(s).
4.
Defendants Can Produce Any Sensitive Information Under the
Court’s Standard Protective Order.
Defendants maintain that several of Plaintiffs’ discovery requests seek confidential,
proprietary, and business-sensitive information that is intended for internal use only. Although
that may be true, it is not a reason to refuse to produce responsive information. For any such
information, Defendants can produce it with an appropriate designation under the court’s
standard protective order, which is applicable to all civil cases in this court. DUCivR 26-2.
5.
Plaintiffs Are Entitled to Discovery on the Topic of Hospice Care.
Some of Plaintiffs’ discovery requests seek information about hospice care coverage
criteria. Defendants contend that hospice care is not analogous to the type of care at issue in this
case (i.e., residential treatment for mental health and substance abuse issues). As such,
Defendants contend they should not be required to respond to any discovery requests on the topic
of hospice care.
In their reply, Plaintiffs point to persuasive authority indicating that, for a Parity Act
claim, the appropriate comparison for identifying analogous levels of care between mental
health/substance use disorders and medical/surgical treatment is not the type of care, but rather
whether the care involved inpatient benefits versus outpatient benefits. 13 Plaintiffs further
contend that any care falling in the intermediate range between inpatient and outpatient should be
compared regardless of the type of care. Accordingly, Plaintiffs assert that discovery related to
13
ECF No. 66 at 6-7.
6
Case 2:17-cv-01328-DAK-JCB Document 69 Filed 07/22/20 Page 7 of 8 PageID# 853
hospice care is relevant because both hospice care and the type of care at issue in this case are in
an intermediate range between inpatient and outpatient.
The court is persuaded by and, therefore, adopts Plaintiffs’ arguments. Accordingly,
discovery on the issue of hospice care will be allowed.
6.
Plaintiffs Fail to Demonstrate That They Are Entitled to Discovery on
Certain Types of Programs/Facilities or on Unrelated Policies or
Plans.
Some of Plaintiffs’ discovery requests seek information about the processing of claims
for outdoor behavioral healthcare programs, wilderness programs, transitional living programs,
or other sub-acute inpatient treatment facilities or programs for mental health or substance use
disorders. Other of Plaintiffs’ discovery requests seek information not just about the Plan but
also about coverage determinations under other policies and plans for which UBH is acting as a
third-party administrator. Defendants contend that discovery requests on those topics are
impermissibly broad and do not seek relevant or proportional information.
Importantly, Plaintiffs’ reply does not address Defendants’ arguments on those points. As
such, the court is left to conclude that Plaintiffs have tacitly admitted that these discovery
requests do not seek relevant or proportional information. Because the court cannot and will not
make arguments on Plaintiffs’ behalf, the discovery requests on these topics will not be allowed.
II.
Stipulated Motion to Stay Amended Scheduling Order
In this motion, the parties contend that the amended scheduling order should be stayed
until the court rules on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery. The parties request
that they be permitted to submit a proposed scheduling order to the court on or before December
15, 2020.
7
Case 2:17-cv-01328-DAK-JCB Document 69 Filed 07/22/20 Page 8 of 8 PageID# 854
Given that the court has now ruled on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery,
it is unnecessary for the parties to wait until their proposed date to submit a proposed scheduling
order. Accordingly, the parties’ motion is granted in part and denied in part. The amended
scheduling order is hereby stayed, but the parties must submit a proposed scheduling order to the
court within 14 days of the date of this order.
ORDER
In summary, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1.
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery 14 is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART.
2.
The parties’ Stipulated Motion to Stay Amended Scheduling Order 15 is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The parties shall submit a
proposed scheduling order to the court within 14 days of the date of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED July 22, 2020.
BY THE COURT:
JARED C. BENNETT
United States Magistrate Judge
14
ECF No. 64.
15
ECF No. 68.
8
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?