New York City Transit Authority v. Express Scripts, Inc.

Background

New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) sued its former pharmacy benefits manager, Express Scripts, Inc., for breach of contract. Trial was scheduled to begin on March 13, 2023. Before trial, both parties filed motions in limine—requests asking the court to decide in advance whether particular evidence or testimony could be presented to the jury.

Express Scripts’s Motions

- Motion in Limine #2: The court denied the motion as moot regarding the Caribou dataset because NYCTA conceded it would not use that dataset to prove damages. The court also denied the motion as moot regarding Ms. Ridgway. It denied the motion as to the Aon Report without prejudice to renewal by objection at trial, because admissibility could depend on the purpose for which NYCTA offered the report and whether NYCTA established a proper foundation. The court granted the motion as to Mr. Kozlowski. It concluded that allowing him to testify about subjects beyond his earlier disclosure would unfairly surprise Express Scripts, particularly because NYCTA’s counsel had limited his deposition testimony to damages and the court had already barred him from testifying about damages at trial. - Motion in Limine #3: The court denied the motion. It ruled that the amount NYCTA paid to and through Express Scripts could help the jury understand the parties’ relationship and Express Scripts’s work, making it relevant to duty and breach. The court stated that any possible confusion could be addressed with instructions to the jury rather than by excluding the evidence. - Motion in Limine #4: The court granted the motion. It ruled that Express Scripts’s size, financial information, and parent company were irrelevant to the issues for trial and that any limited usefulness was outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. - Motion in Limine #5: The court granted the motion. It ruled that NYCTA’s financial condition was not relevant to the issues for trial and that the evidence could cause prejudice. - Motion in Limine #6: The court stated that it was inclined to agree that Mr. Ross was not a proper witness because he lacked relevant personal knowledge, but it reserved judgment until the final pretrial conference. NYCTA was directed to be prepared to explain in detail what Mr. Ross would testify about. - Motion in Limine #7: The court denied the motion. It ruled that Express Scripts’s argument should have been raised at summary judgment and was not proper for a motion in limine. The issue would instead be available for argument to the jury. - Motion in Limine #8: The court granted the motion. NYCTA could present evidence that Express Scripts understood the implications and risks of prescription-drug plans covering compound drugs based on other contracts and relationships, but it could not present the particulars of the TRICARE program. The court found those particulars irrelevant or substantially outweighed by risks including confusion, wasted time, and unfair prejudice. - Motion in Limine #9: The court stated that the reports at issue could be admissible if they showed what Express Scripts knew or should have known before February 2018. Because NYCTA had not explained whether or how the reports did so, the court reserved judgment pending further discussion at the final pretrial conference.

NYCTA’s Motions

- Motion in Limine #1: The court denied the motion as moot in light of Express Scripts’s representation that it would not introduce Mr. Kozlowski’s summary charts, the court’s exclusion of those charts, the court’s fee award, and the court’s ruling about Mr. Kozlowski’s testimony. The court stated that it could address other issues at trial. - Motion in Limine #2: The court granted the motion. It ruled that whether Express Scripts’s offer of the Compound Management Solution discharged its obligations did not depend on why NYCTA rejected the offer or whether NYCTA’s decision was sound. The court therefore found no apparent relevance in the 2004 arbitration decision or the 2019 legal opinion and stated that those materials would be excluded unless the court was persuaded otherwise. - Motion in Limine #3: The court denied the motion. It ruled that the existence and availability of the Enhanced Fraud, Waste, and Abuse program within the same contract were relevant and highly probative of the parties’ agreement. - Motion in Limine #4: The court denied the motion without prejudice to renewal by objection at trial. It found that Mr. Rubenstein’s report was somewhat relevant to Ms. Hayes’s opinion about the industry standard of care for account management and identifying and communicating unusual data. The court also ruled that Mr. Rubenstein could not testify beyond the scope of his expert report. - Motion in Limine #5: The court denied the motion. It stated that live examination of the witnesses might be limited to matters within their personal knowledge and that Express Scripts might be allowed to use their depositions taken under Rule 30(b)(6), but directed the parties to discuss the issue before trial. - Motion in Limine #6: The court denied the motion. It stated that the party offering evidence must establish the required foundation, either by agreement or through a sponsoring witness. If Express Scripts would not agree that the exhibit was authentic, the court would permit NYCTA to call an Express Scripts records custodian at trial, subject to further discussion by the parties.

Disposition

The court ruled on the listed motions as described above and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 206. This was a pretrial evidence order; it did not resolve the underlying breach-of-contract claims.