Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 18, 2023

United States v. Anthem, Inc.

Judge
Andrew Carter
Docket
1:20-cv-02593
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In United States v. Anthem, Judge Parker denied Anthem’s request to serve contention interrogatories because other sources already provided the information.

Who this affects

Anthem, Inc., whose request to serve contention interrogatories was denied, and the United States, which opposed the request.

What happened

In United States v. Anthem, Anthem asked for permission to serve interrogatories requiring the United States to identify every allegedly false claim, statement, and related information.

The United States opposed the request, arguing that Anthem had not shown the interrogatories were a more practical way to obtain the information than document requests or a deposition. The court agreed because the United States had already identified 99 attestations involving allegedly false claims, and Anthem had its own records and data to assess the claims.

Judge Katharine H. Parker denied Anthem’s motion to serve the interrogatories. The court explained that interrogatories should not be used to make a party repeat factual information already produced or available through the requesting party’s own records, and noted that interrogatories are generally exchanged at the end of discovery in that district.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
United States v. Anthem, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-02593
Judge
Andrew Carter
Date
Sept. 18, 2023

Background

Anthem sought permission to serve contention interrogatories on the United States. These interrogatories would have required the United States to identify each claim and statement it alleged was false, as well as the information it alleged was false. The request was filed as ECF No. 123.

Parties’ Positions

The United States opposed Anthem’s request under Local Rule 33.3(b), arguing that Anthem had not shown the interrogatories were a more practical method of obtaining the requested information than a document request or deposition.

Court’s Analysis

The court agreed with the United States. It noted that the United States had already provided Anthem with information about the subjects of the proposed interrogatories, including 99 attestations that the United States alleged contained false claims. The court also found that Anthem could examine its own data concerning claims it submitted for payment and determine whether those claims were supported by medical records.

The court explained that Anthem could obtain the information through other discovery and its own records. It stated that Anthem could not use interrogatories to require the United States to repeat factual information that had already been produced and that Anthem could understand from its own records and the United States’ production. The court also noted that the district’s general practice is to exchange interrogatories at the conclusion of discovery, after the parties have used documents and depositions to obtain information.

Disposition

The court denied Anthem’s motion to serve interrogatories. Judge Katharine H. Parker entered the order on September 18, 2023.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.