Federal Trade Commission v. IQVIA Holdings Inc.

Background

IQVIA asked for a pre-motion discovery conference concerning a proposed amendment to a protective order entered on July 28, 2023. A protective order controls how litigation materials designated as confidential may be used and who may see them. The parties had not agreed on whether certain IQVIA in-house lawyers could access confidential discovery.

IQVIA proposed allowing Maureen Nakly, Harvey Ashman, and John O’Tuel to access the information. According to IQVIA’s letter, none of the three participated in competitive decision-making. IQVIA described Nakly as its lead litigation lawyer and lead mergers-and-acquisitions lawyer, Ashman as its sole in-house antitrust counsel, and O’Tuel as an in-house litigator.

Parties’ Positions

IQVIA argued that in-house counsel who are not involved in competitive decision-making should not be denied access merely because they work for the company. It proposed safeguards requiring the lawyers to sign declarations, prohibiting them from sharing confidential information with company personnel involved in competitive decisions, and limiting their use of the information to the protective order’s terms. IQVIA also proposed notifying affected third parties and giving them an opportunity to object before their information was disclosed to the designated lawyers.

The FTC refused to agree to access for all three lawyers. It agreed to allow Nakly access under the proposed conditions, with an additional requirement that she refrain from competitive decision-making for one year after her last access to confidential information. The letter states that the FTC identified third-party confidentiality interests as a concern.

Court’s Action

Judge Edgardo Ramos ordered the FTC to respond to IQVIA’s letter by no later than August 18, 2023. The provided text does not show a ruling on IQVIA’s proposed amended protective order, whether any in-house lawyer was granted access, or whether the requested conference occurred.