The ERISA Industry Committee v. Minnesota Department of Commerce and Grace…

Background

The plaintiffs challenge Minnesota Statute § 62W.07. They allege that the statute is preempted—displaced by federal law—under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), and that applying it outside Minnesota violates the Constitution. The Department sought an order compelling Cigna and The ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC) to provide additional discovery. It also sought to reopen fact discovery and extend the remaining deadlines.

Fact discovery closed on October 24, 2025. The Department had agreed to multiple extensions for plaintiffs’ discovery responses, sent a deficiency letter shortly before the discovery deadline, and waited until after that deadline to seek changes to the schedule. The court applied the requirement that a scheduling order may be changed only for “good cause,” with diligence as the primary consideration.

Scheduling motion

The court denied the Department’s request to reopen fact discovery. It found that the Department had not shown good cause because it consented to late responses, knew before the deadline that it believed the production was insufficient, and chose to wait to seek an extension so it could combine that request with its motion to compel. Because the court found no good cause, it did not address whether extraordinary circumstances existed under the local rule.

The court nevertheless granted in part and denied in part the request to modify the scheduling order to account for the time required to complete the discovery ordered in this decision. Expert discovery, including depositions, must be completed by April 2, 2026. Dispositive motions must be served and filed by May 29, 2026. All other deadlines remain in effect.

Motion to compel: Cigna

The court granted the motion as to Cigna’s Interrogatory 2. Cigna had provided examples of affected plans, but the court found that it had not fully answered the request. Cigna must identify its plans that were affected by the statute and explain how they were affected. If no plan benefits changed because of the statute, Cigna must clearly say so.

The court granted the motion as to Interrogatory 3. Cigna must identify, to the best of its knowledge, pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) that took steps to comply with the statute’s anti-steering provision and those that did not, and explain the effect on those PBMs’ profits or losses. Cigna must also describe the steps it took as a PBM and the financial effects the statute had on Cigna in that capacity.

The court granted the motion as to Interrogatories 10, 11, and 12. Cigna must provide complete answers identifying the requirements or restrictions for pharmacies participating in its preferred, mail-order, and specialty pharmacy networks.

The court denied the motion as to Interrogatory 15, which sought every person with knowledge of the facts alleged in the complaint or otherwise related to the matter. The court found that request too broad and disproportionate, particularly because fact discovery would not be reopened. Cigna had already identified one person whom it represented had relevant knowledge.

The court denied the motion as to Requests for Production 3 and 4. Those requests sought documents about the financial effects of the statute’s local-access and anti-steering provisions on plan beneficiaries. The court accepted Cigna’s representation that it had no such documents.

The court granted the motion as to Requests for Production 6 and 8. Cigna must search for and produce documents concerning recommendations or advice by PBMs to ERISA plan sponsors about benefit-plan design and pharmacy networks. The Department had narrowed the requests to plans Cigna sponsors rather than plans where Cigna acts only as a PBM.

The court granted the motion as to Request for Production 7. Cigna must search for and produce documents concerning ERISA plan sponsors’ determinations about covered drugs, payment amounts, and pharmacies where beneficiaries may fill prescriptions.

The court granted the motion as to Request for Production 9. Cigna must search for and produce documents identifying covered drugs, the amounts plans pay for those drugs, and the pharmacies where beneficiaries may fill prescriptions. The court found that this information was relevant to the statute’s financial effects and to the Department’s ability to respond to plaintiffs’ standing arguments.

The court denied the motion as to Request for Production 10. Although the requested information about where beneficiaries filled prescriptions was relevant, the court found that seeking all such documents for potentially thousands of beneficiaries over nine years was not proportional to the needs of the case. The court also noted Cigna’s position that it had not yet taken steps to comply with the statute in its ERISA plans.

The court granted the motion as to Request for Production 11. Cigna must search for and produce documents concerning any fiduciary duty owed by PBMs to ERISA plan sponsors. The court found the request relevant to a defense the Department intended to pursue and held that discovery could address facts supporting a legal theory even if a party argues that existing law forecloses that theory.

The court denied the motion as to Request for Production 12. The request sought all documents about reimbursement rates, pay structures, and other financial arrangements involving plan sponsors, PBMs, pharmacies, drug manufacturers, or drug wholesalers. The court found it overbroad and disproportionate.

Motion to compel: ERIC

The court denied the motion as to ERIC’s Interrogatory 1, which sought each plaintiff’s organizational, membership, and governance structure. The Department intended to use ERIC’s membership information to pursue discovery from other entities. Because the court declined to reopen discovery, it denied this request.

Disposition

Judge Shannon G. Elkins ordered that the Department’s motion to compel was granted in part and denied in part. Cigna must provide the ordered responses as soon as practicable and no later than 30 days after the order. The Department’s motion to modify the scheduling order was also granted in part and denied in part. This order addressed discovery and scheduling; it did not decide the plaintiffs’ challenge to Minnesota Statute § 62W.07.