RJ v. Cigna Behavioral Health, Inc.

Background

This putative class action concerns plaintiffs’ allegations that defendants failed to reimburse covered mental-health provider claims at usual, customary, and reasonable rates. The opinion says plaintiffs asserted claims involving alleged racketeering, underpayment of benefits and breach of plan provisions under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and breach of fiduciary duties.

Plaintiffs originally noticed 10 fact depositions: eight individual depositions and two depositions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), one for each corporate defendant. Each Rule 30(b)(6) deposition required the corporate defendant to designate more than one representative. Plaintiffs then sought permission to take six additional depositions: those of current Cigna employee Keith Jones, former employee Annette Parotti, and four not-yet-identified witnesses from four nonparty benefit-plan sponsors. Defendants opposed the request.

Legal standard

Rule 30(a)(2) generally requires court permission before a party deposes more than 10 witnesses, unless the parties agree otherwise. The court must permit additional depositions only to the extent they meet the relevance and proportionality requirements of Rule 26(b). Discovery is not proportional when it is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, when the information could be obtained from a more convenient or less burdensome source, when the requesting party has already had enough opportunity to obtain it, or when the burden or expense outweighs the likely benefit.

The parties agreed that plaintiffs had to make a particularized showing of need for the additional depositions.

Court’s analysis

The court found that plaintiffs explained in detail why they wanted to depose Jones and Parotti, and explained at a high level why they wanted testimony from plan-sponsor representatives. Defendants provided a detailed objection that the testimony would likely overlap substantially with testimony from current and former employees and Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses.

The court observed that few depositions had actually been completed, making it difficult for plaintiffs to make the particularized showing usually required for additional depositions. Based on the parties’ submission, other witnesses appeared to have at least some of the same information, and Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses were expected to provide some of that information. The court concluded that Jones and Parotti might have limited unique information relevant to the claims and defenses, but that taking all six requested depositions would not be proportional to the needs of the case. The court also noted that plaintiffs had not identified the four plan sponsors or explained why they needed to depose all four.

Disposition

The court granted plaintiffs leave to notice two additional depositions, bringing the total to 12. Plaintiffs could choose which two depositions to take. The order did not decide the merits of plaintiffs’ claims.