The Medical Society of the State of New York v. UnitedHealth Group Inc.
- James Oetken
- 1:16-cv-05265
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Medical Society v. UnitedHealth, Judge Oetken denied the motion to compel, denied a conference request as moot, and ruled differently on the three exhibits.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the case, particularly the parties involved in the discovery dispute and the filing of Exhibits A, B, and C.
What happened
The Medical Society of the State of New York and other plaintiffs asked the court to require UnitedHealth and the other defendants to produce documents that plaintiffs said were improperly redacted or withheld during discovery.
Plaintiffs argued that the documents fell within an exception to attorney-client privilege for communications involving fiduciary duties. United opposed the request, arguing that it had produced the materials covered by that exception and that plaintiffs raised the issue too late.
Judge J. Paul Oetken agreed with UnitedHealth’s explanation of the governing standard and concluded that each requested document fell outside the exception. He denied the motion to compel, denied the request for a conference as moot, granted the motion to seal Exhibit B, and denied it as to Exhibits A and C, which were to be filed publicly.
The detailed version
- The Medical Society of the State of New York v. UnitedHealth Group Inc. · No. 1:16-cv-05265
- James Oetken
- Oct. 7, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs filed a letter motion seeking a pre-motion discovery conference to compel the defendants to produce documents that plaintiffs claimed had been improperly redacted or withheld. They also filed a motion to seal three exhibits supporting the conference request.
Arguments
The plaintiffs argued that the requested documents were subject to the fiduciary exception to attorney-client privilege. That exception can require disclosure of certain communications involving an entity’s fiduciary duties. UnitedHealth opposed the motion, asserting that it had disclosed materials covered by the exception throughout discovery and that the plaintiffs’ request came too late. UnitedHealth distinguished between legal advice concerning benefits decisions or other fiduciary duties, which it said was subject to the exception, and privileged advice concerning past benefits decisions, possible litigation, or non-fiduciary functions, which it said was not.
Ruling
The court agreed that UnitedHealth’s description of the governing legal standard was consistent with controlling case law. It also agreed with UnitedHealth’s explanation of why each requested document fell outside the fiduciary exception. The court therefore denied the plaintiffs’ motion to compel and denied their motion for a conference as moot.
The court separately granted the plaintiffs’ motion to seal Exhibit B. It denied the motion as to Exhibits A and C and directed that those exhibits be filed publicly. The clerk was directed to close the motions at Docket Numbers 231 and 232.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.