Cotiviti Holdings, Inc. v. McDonald

Background

The parties jointly requested a pre-motion conference concerning alleged deficiencies in plaintiffs’ responses to defendants’ interrogatories. The dispute arose in a trade-secret misappropriation case. Defendants asserted that plaintiffs had not identified, for each defendant, the alleged trade secrets the defendant accessed, the secrets the defendant allegedly misappropriated, or how the alleged misappropriation occurred.

Defendants also identified alleged deficiencies in responses to Interrogatories Nos. 4, 6, 7, and 8. They argued that plaintiffs had not fully answered questions about their claims, alleged irreparable harm, damages, and the services they provided. Defendants further argued that plaintiffs’ inability to identify the alleged trade secrets supported their pending request to dismiss the complaint, but the order did not decide that pending request.

Parties’ Positions

Defendants requested a pre-motion conference concerning a possible motion to compel, which would seek complete discovery responses. They also sought a motion for a protective order that would pause discovery until plaintiffs specifically identified the trade secrets at issue. In addition, defendants asked to resolve whether the named defendants could review documents designated as “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the proposed protective order.

Plaintiffs argued that Interrogatories Nos. 1–4, 6, and 8 were outside the limits of Local Rule 33.3 and were premature contention interrogatories—questions seeking the factual basis for a party’s legal claims. Plaintiffs also maintained that certain terms were vague or undefined and that some questions called for legal conclusions. Regarding the protective order, plaintiffs proposed allowing defense counsel to seek permission to share particular documents with defendants on a document-by-document basis rather than granting blanket access.

Court’s Action

The court’s order states, “APPLICATION DENIED.” It did not rule on the merits of the trade-secret claims or decide the pending motion to dismiss. Instead, the court directed the parties to meet and confer further about the alleged discovery deficiencies. The parties were also ordered to submit a proposed protective order and identify any objections to that proposal. Under Judge Vernon S. Broderick’s individual rules, the parties could submit a joint letter asking for court intervention if further discussions did not resolve their disagreements.

Effect of the Order

The order required additional party discussions and a proposed protective order but did not compel the requested discovery responses, pause discovery, grant the requested protective-order relief, or decide whether the plaintiffs’ claims could proceed.