Popovchak v. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated

Background

The court addressed several discovery-related motions arising from the plaintiffs’ renewed motion to compel. The plaintiffs sought materials from the Fremont trial, including the complete trial transcript and sealed trial exhibits. They argued that the Fremont materials were relevant because that case and this case concerned overlapping facts and the same alleged illegal scheme involving defendants’ reimbursement programs.

The defendants had previously agreed to produce remaining unsealed transcripts, relevant nonpublic portions of sealed transcripts, responsive sealed exhibits after reviewing them for sensitive information, and a log of withheld materials. The court had denied the plaintiffs’ first motion to compel as moot based on that representation, while allowing the plaintiffs to renew the motion if the materials were not produced. The plaintiffs later argued that the defendants had not produced the materials or the promised log. The defendants argued that the renewed motion was premature because the parties had not adequately met and conferred, and that the request was overly broad, irrelevant, and disproportionate.

Motion to Compel

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), discovery may concern nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. The requesting party initially must show a possibility of relevance; the resisting party then must show why discovery should be denied.

The court found that the parties had met and conferred in good faith and that further discussions would not resolve this particular dispute. The court also found that the plaintiffs had made the required initial showing of relevance. The court stated that the two cases did not need to be identical: the plaintiffs had shown sufficient factual overlap because both cases concerned the financial structures of reimbursement programs run by the defendants. The court also rejected the defendants’ proportionality objection, finding that the requested materials were important to the issues, unavailable to the plaintiffs because they were sealed, and not unduly burdensome because the materials already existed.

The court granted the plaintiffs’ renewed motion to compel. It ordered the defendants to produce the remaining sealed Fremont trial exhibits in accordance with the deadlines in the Third Amended Case Management Plan.

Motion for Leave to File a Reply

The court granted in part, nunc pro tunc, the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a reply. The court accepted the reply but declined to consider the 21-page declaration from plaintiffs’ counsel that was attached to it because the declaration attempted to circumvent the court’s three-page limit for discovery-dispute briefs.

Sealing Requests

The court explained that documents filed with the court may qualify as “judicial documents,” which carry a presumptive public-access right. Because these filings concerned a discovery dispute rather than a motion finally resolving claims, the presumption of access was lower than it would be for summary-judgment filings. The court nevertheless found that narrowly tailored redactions were justified to protect sensitive commercial information, business strategies, financial results, and nonparties’ personally identifying information.

The court granted the defendants’ requests to keep sealed or partially sealed the following materials:

- Exhibit C to the plaintiffs’ motion to compel, with the unredacted version remaining under seal and access limited to the applicable parties. - Exhibit C to the defendants’ opposition or reply materials concerning the motion to compel, with the unredacted version remaining under seal and access limited to the applicable parties. - The plaintiffs’ reply and the declaration attached to it. - Exhibit 1 to the plaintiffs’ reply. - Exhibits 3–7 and 17–22 to the plaintiffs’ reply, which were ordered to remain under permanent seal with access limited to the applicable parties. - Exhibits 15 and 16 to the plaintiffs’ reply, which the Clerk was directed to place under seal with access limited to the applicable parties.

The court denied without prejudice the request to seal Exhibit 2 to the plaintiffs’ reply. The proposed redactions were not narrowly tailored; for example, the court found that the titles of presentations did not reveal the sensitive information that the defendants sought to protect. Exhibit 2 was ordered to remain temporarily under seal, and any renewed request for permanent sealing was required to be filed by May 20, 2025, with narrower redactions and supporting legal authority.

Disposition and Classification

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to compel. It granted in part the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file their reply. It granted several sealing requests, denied without prejudice the request to permanently seal Exhibit 2, and directed the Clerk to maintain or place specified filings and exhibits under seal. Judge Dale E. Ho also directed the Clerk to terminate the listed motions.

This is a procedural order because it resolves discovery, filing, and document-sealing issues without deciding the underlying claims.