Hyams v. CVS Health Corporation

Background

The court’s standing order required the parties to meet and confer about discovery disputes and then present unresolved disputes in a joint letter brief. The joint brief had to identify the unresolved issue, summarize each side’s position with supporting facts and legal authority, and include each party’s final proposed compromise.

Ryan Hyams filed four individual discovery letter briefs. He said he sent his positions to the defendants, collectively referred to in the order as “CVS,” on October 30, 2019, and asked for CVS’s positions by November 6. CVS did not dispute that it responded only on November 6, did not provide substantive positions, and instead said it intended to ask for a schedule for separate briefing.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that CVS’s failure to respond substantively and its unilateral decision to abandon the joint-letter-brief process did not comply with the standing order. The court explained that the meet-and-confer and joint-brief procedures are intended to encourage discussion and compromise, narrow the issues, and focus the matters presented to the court.

The court noted that it had authorized full briefing on the patient-safety work-product issue after several rounds of joint letter briefs because of the circumstances of that issue. But the court had not authorized CVS to use separate briefing for the other discovery disputes or to wait a week after receiving Hyams’s portions before responding without substantive positions.

Order

The court ordered CVS to provide Hyams with its substantive portions of the four discovery letter briefs by November 8, 2019. The parties then had to meet and confer, in person or by telephone, within two business days for at least one hour to discuss the disputes and try to resolve them through compromise. If disputes remained, the parties could file joint letter briefs that reflected their discussions and complied with the standing order, including its requirement that each side provide a final proposed compromise on every issue.

The court also addressed whether discovery disputes should be directed to Magistrate Judge Beeler or District Judge Phyllis Hamilton. Judge Hamilton’s October 18 order directed that any motion to compel concerning objections to Hyams’s fourth set of requests for production based on relevance should be filed before Judge Hamilton. The court stated that this order did not withdraw Judge Hamilton’s general referral of other discovery disputes. Unless Judge Hamilton withdrew that referral, those other disputes were to be presented first to Magistrate Judge Beeler. The order states, “IT IS SO ORDERED,” and was signed by Laurel Beeler, United States Magistrate Judge.