Popovchak v. UnitedHealth Group Inc.
- Ho
- 1:22-cv-10756
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Popovchak v. UnitedHealth, Judge Ho granted in part and denied in part two discovery motions involving privilege logs and a third-party subpoena.
The plaintiffs, UnitedHealth Group Inc. and the other defendants, and non-party MultiPlan. United must supplement parts of its privilege log, and MultiPlan must provide specified information and documents without shifting production costs to the plaintiffs.
What happened
In Popovchak et al. v. UnitedHealth Group Inc. et al., the plaintiffs asked the court to require United and non-party MultiPlan to provide additional information and documents during discovery.
The court denied or partly granted the plaintiffs’ requests concerning United’s privilege log, requiring some additional author, recipient, title, and department information while leaving other privilege assertions in place. It also partly granted requests directed to MultiPlan, ordering limited information about its pricing methods and contracted providers. The court denied MultiPlan’s request to shift production costs to the plaintiffs.
Judge Dale E. Ho said the parties could propose an amended case-management plan to account for the ordered production. The order addressed discovery issues and did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Popovchak v. UnitedHealth Group Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-10756
- Ho
- July 17, 2026
Background
On July 16, 2026, the court held a discovery conference concerning two motions to compel brought by the plaintiffs: one against the defendants, collectively referred to as United, and one against non-party MultiPlan. The court stated that the motions were granted in part and denied in part.
Motion to Compel United
The plaintiffs challenged documents United withheld based on attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, and the common-interest privilege.
- Privilege-log entries with no attorney listed: The motion was denied. The court held that the absence of an attorney’s name on an entry does not by itself defeat the attorney-client privilege when the document description adequately supports the privilege claim. The plaintiffs had not otherwise challenged the descriptions for these documents. - Entries with no author listed: The motion was granted in part and denied in part. United must supplement its privilege log with author information, to the extent that information exists, by July 31,
- If no author information exists for particular communications or documents, United must certify that to the plaintiffs by the same date. - Entries with no recipient listed: The motion was granted in part and denied in part. For email entries, United must provide a complete list of recipients by July 31,
- The motion was denied for documents that were not emails or other forms of communication. - Entire email chains withheld: The motion was denied without prejudice. The court accepted United’s representation that it had produced, in redacted form, earlier emails not protected by attorney-client privilege and withheld only those properly covered by the privilege. The plaintiffs had not identified a specific basis to challenge the privilege assertions. - Unidentified individuals: The motion was granted in part and denied in part. United must provide the title and department of each unidentified individual by July 31,
- The request for additional information was denied without prejudice because the current record did not show that more information was needed to evaluate United’s privilege claims. - Descriptions referring to “information” or documents that “reflect” legal advice: The motion was denied. The court found no indication that the references involved unrelated outside documents and accepted United’s counsel’s explanation that “reflect” was intended to mean that the documents contained legal advice. - Work-product doctrine: The motion was denied. The court found United’s descriptions sufficiently detailed to support its claims that the documents were protected work product, meaning materials prepared in connection with legal advice or litigation. - Common-interest privilege: The motion was denied. The court found United’s descriptions sufficiently detailed to support those assertions. - Fiduciary exception: The court reserved judgment on whether this exception applied to communications for which United claimed attorney-client privilege and which the court had not found waived.
Motion to Compel MultiPlan
The plaintiffs also sought documents from MultiPlan under a third-party subpoena.
- Request for Production 6: The motion was granted in part. MultiPlan must produce, by September 15, 2026, responsive documents showing when and how it currently uses its Data iSight methodology rather than another method to price a United claim. The request for historical information about those procedures was denied without prejudice because producing all of that information was not proportional to its asserted relevance on the current record. - Request for Production 9: The motion was granted in part. By September 15, 2026, MultiPlan must provide a stipulation or affidavit stating whether the medical provider for each of the 103 subpoenaed claims was contracted with MultiPlan on the date of service. It must also attest that it will retain records it possesses showing which medical providers had contracts with MultiPlan throughout the responsive period. - Cost shifting: MultiPlan’s request to shift production costs to the plaintiffs was denied. The court considered MultiPlan’s interest in the case, its ability to bear the costs based on the record, and the public importance of litigation concerning amounts paid to members of employer-sponsored health benefit plans administered by United.
Other Direction and Disposition
If the parties seek to amend the case-management plan to account for the ordered production, they must file a proposed amended plan by July 31, 2026. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 161. This was a discovery order and did not resolve the underlying claims.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.