Precision Medicine Group, LLC v. Blue Matter, LLC

Background

Precision Medicine Group, LLC, Precisionadvisors Group, Inc., and Precision Medicine Group Holdings, Inc. (collectively, “Precision”) sued Blue Matter, LLC and several individual defendants. Precision alleged that Blue Matter, described as a direct competitor, unlawfully targeted Precision’s employees and trade secrets. Precision’s claims included claims under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, Pennsylvania and New Jersey trade-secret statutes, and state-law claims involving fiduciary duties, contracts, economic opportunities, confidential information, and unfair competition. The discovery disputes addressed in this order were not directed to the individual defendants.

The order addressed three issues: (1) the search terms Blue Matter would use to find electronically stored information, or “ESI”; (2) whether Blue Matter had to search Ashwin Dandekar’s personal email accounts; and (3) the definition of “Market Access” in Precision’s discovery requests.

Legal standard

The court explained that discovery generally covers documents within a party’s possession, custody, or control that are relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. Proportionality considers factors including the importance of the issues, the amount at stake, the parties’ access to information and resources, the value of the discovery, and the burden or expense compared with its likely benefit. The court also noted that discovery may be limited when it is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative or can be obtained from a more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive source.

ESI search terms

Precision had proposed several sets of search terms. Its first set produced more than 40,000 hits, or more than 60,000 when document families were included. Its second set produced more than 30,000 hits, or more than 55,000 including families. Precision’s third set produced about 47,000 documents including families.

Precision argued that Blue Matter should use the third set. Blue Matter argued that the volume was unreasonable and proposed removing twelve terms, which would reduce the hit count to 17,714. The court found that the twelve terms were generally broad and nonspecific, but it found one term—the “Fourth Term,” concerning Kelly and listed parties and individuals—sufficiently connected to the case and narrowly tailored. The court therefore ordered Blue Matter to proceed with Blue Matter’s Second Search Terms plus the Fourth Term.

Dandekar’s personal emails

Precision asked the court to require Blue Matter to search Dandekar’s personal email accounts. Precision alleged that Dandekar had a longstanding personal relationship with the individual defendants, advised two of them about Precision’s acquisition of their former employer, and solicited them to leave Precision and join Blue Matter in violation of restrictive covenants. Precision argued that Blue Matter had the practical ability to obtain Dandekar’s personal emails and that it was reasonable to assume relevant communications might be there.

Blue Matter stated that Dandekar did not use his personal email accounts for Blue Matter business and argued that Precision had offered no evidence otherwise. Blue Matter also stated that the individual defendants had not admitted communicating with Dandekar by personal email and that Blue Matter had produced text messages they admitted exchanging.

The court presumed, for purposes of the dispute, that Blue Matter had control over Dandekar’s personal emails. But it found that Precision had not shown a sufficient basis to suspect that relevant emails were in those accounts. The court therefore denied without prejudice Precision’s request that Blue Matter search Dandekar’s personal email accounts. The court stated that Precision could renew the request if later discovery revealed a valid justification.

Definition of “Market Access”

Precision and Blue Matter proposed different definitions. Precision argued that its broader definition was needed to obtain evidence about Blue Matter’s market-access services. Blue Matter argued that Precision’s definition was so broad that it covered all pharmaceutical projects and was effectively meaningless.

The court ordered the parties to use a revised definition. Under that definition, “Market Access” means strategies, activities, or processes related to accessing markets for pharmaceutical products. The definition includes activities involving the value of treatments to payers, product value, payer-market segments, market penetration, pricing and contracting terms, reimbursement levels, payer controls, health economics and outcomes research, distribution, contracting strategies, and analysis of pricing, prescribing, utilization, reimbursement, and related payer information.

Disposition

Judge Cave ordered Blue Matter to use Blue Matter’s Second Search Terms plus the Fourth Term; denied without prejudice Precision’s request for a search of Dandekar’s personal email accounts; and ordered the parties to use the court’s revised definition of “Market Access.” The Clerk was directed to close the discovery-related filing.