Popovchak v. UnitedHealth Group Inc.
- Ho
- 1:22-cv-10756
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Popovchak v. UnitedHealth Group, Judge Ho denied without prejudice plaintiffs’ motion to compel privileged documents under the fiduciary exception.
The plaintiffs’ request for privileged documents was denied without prejudice, and the defendants were not ordered to produce the documents. The plaintiffs may renew the motion after meeting and conferring with the defendants.
What happened
In Popovchak et al. v. UnitedHealth Group Inc. et al., the plaintiffs asked the court to order production of documents the defendants withheld as protected by attorney-client privilege. The plaintiffs relied on the fiduciary exception.
The court said the current record did not show that any particular document concerned plan administration or that the documents lacked legal advice obtained to protect the defendants from liability. Plaintiffs may file a renewed motion, but they must first meet and confer with the defendants and, if necessary, jointly propose a briefing schedule and page limits.
Judge Dale E. Ho denied the motion without prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to close the related docket entries. The order did not prohibit a renewed motion.
The detailed version
- Popovchak v. UnitedHealth Group Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-10756
- Ho
- July 20, 2026
Background
The plaintiffs moved to compel the defendants to produce numerous documents withheld under the attorney-client privilege. That privilege generally protects confidential communications involving legal advice. The plaintiffs argued that the fiduciary exception applied. The opinion does not identify the specific documents or provide further details about the underlying claims.
Court’s Analysis
The court cited the fiduciary exception’s potential application to communications concerning plan administration. It held that the current record did not allow it to determine that any particular withheld document could properly be characterized as concerning plan administration. The court also could not determine that, even if documents had that character, they did not contain legal advice obtained to protect the defendants from liability. The court stated that the fiduciary exception would not apply in that circumstance.
Ruling and Next Steps
The court denied the motion without prejudice. The plaintiffs are not prohibited from filing a renewed motion at this time. Before doing so, they must meet and confer with the defendants to try to resolve the dispute. If the parties reach an impasse and the plaintiffs choose to renew the motion, they must meet and confer about a proposed briefing schedule and page limits. Judge Dale E. Ho also directed the Clerk of Court to close ECF Nos. 152 and 153.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.