Sohmer v. UnitedHealth Group Inc.

Background

Samantha Sohmer, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, served requests for documents and interrogatories on UnitedHealth Group, Inc., United Healthcare Services, Inc., United Healthcare Insurance Company, Optum, Inc., and OptumRx, Inc. The discovery concerned prescription-drug claims and whether participants paid more than the amount paid or credited to a pharmacy when a plan used “lesser of three” logic.

Interrogatory No. 2 requested information about each potentially relevant claim, including dates, patient and claim identifiers, drug and pharmacy information, cost-sharing amounts, deductible information, amounts paid to pharmacies, and claim status. The defendants objected that the request was overly broad, burdensome, vague, and potentially sought protected health information. They stated that the requested information was not maintained in the requested format but agreed to produce available prescription-drug transaction data and identify relevant plan documents.

The defendants produced transaction data for the period from October 4, 2010, through January 31, 2020. After reviewing the data, Sohmer sought additional information and moved to compel further responses to Interrogatory No. 2 and Requests for Production Nos. 25, 26, and 30.

Issues Remaining After the Parties’ Agreement

The parties later stipulated that they had resolved the disputes concerning Requests for Production Nos. 25, 26, and 30. They also resolved the portion of Interrogatory No. 2 seeking a narrative explanation of how to interpret the transaction data, including how to connect the data to the relevant plan documents. The defendants represented that they had produced the best information available to derive or determine the answer, and Sohmer did not challenge that representation.

At the hearing, Sohmer clarified that she sought a ruling requiring the defendants to supplement their answer if they or someone acting for them later derived or determined the answer by compiling, summarizing, or otherwise analyzing their business records. This included a dispute over whether later-created attorney work product summarizing the data would have to be produced.

Court’s Analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d) allows a party to answer an interrogatory by identifying business records, including electronically stored information, from which the answer can be determined, but only if the other party can locate and determine the answer with substantially the same effort. The responding party must identify the records sufficiently and provide a reasonable opportunity to examine and use them.

The court held that the defendants properly relied on Rule 33(d). They produced the transaction data and later provided detailed instructions explaining how to identify plans, connect the plan information to the transaction data, locate relevant fields, perform calculations, and align the data sets. The court concluded that this assistance satisfied Rule 33(d).

Rule 26(e) generally requires a party to timely correct or supplement a discovery response when the party learns that the response is materially incomplete or incorrect. The court explained that because the defendants answered under Rule 33(d), any required supplementation would be limited to additional business records. If newly discovered or newly created business records materially made the response incomplete or incorrect, Rule 26(e) would likely apply.

The court declined to require production of attorney work product that compiled or summarized the transaction data. It stated that such work product would not be the defendants’ business records and that Sohmer had not identified case law requiring production of later-created attorney work product after a proper Rule 33(d) response. The court also declined to issue an advisory ruling requiring production of any such future work product.

Disposition

The court ordered that Sohmer’s Motion to Compel Further Production of Documents and Responses to Interrogatories be denied. The portions resolved by the parties’ stipulation were denied as moot. The remaining portion concerning the defendants’ duty to supplement their Rule 33(d) answer to Interrogatory No. 2 was denied without prejudice.