Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_22-cv-00558/USCOURTS-alnd-2_22-cv-00558-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:15 Antitrust Litigation

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OFALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Alaska Air Group, Inc., et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

Anthem, Inc., et al.,

 Defendants.

No. 2:21-cv-01209-RDP

JetBlue Airways Corporation, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

Anthem, Inc., et al.,

 Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-00558-RDP

Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

Anthem, Inc., et al.,

 Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-01256-RDP

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 

These cases are before the court on a discovery dispute regarding Plaintiffs’ Request for 

the Production of Defendants’ MDL Expert Reports that were produced in In Re Blue Cross Blue 

Shield Antitrust Litigation MDL 2406, Case No. 2:13-cv-20000-RDP. The court construes 

Plaintiffs’ Initial Brief in Support of Their Request For Production of Defendants’ MDL Expert 

Reports as a motion to compel production of the reports. The matter has been fully briefed, and it 

is due to be granted.

FILED

 2024 Jan-30 PM 12:42

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:22-cv-00558-RDP Document 330 Filed 01/30/24 Page 1 of 6
2

I. Background

On January 24, 2023, Plaintiffs served their Re-Served First Set Of Requests For 

Production Of Documents. (Doc. # 359-7). Those Requests included (1) “REQUEST NO. 41. All 

Documents produced by Defendants in Case No. 2:13-CV20000-RDP” and (2) “REQUEST NO. 

42. All Documents that were received in production or that were otherwise obtained by Defendants 

in Case No. 2:13-CV-20000-RDP.” (Doc. # 359-7 at 21). 

At an August 9, 2023 status conference, the parties alerted the court to a potential dispute 

regarding the production of Defendants’ MDL Expert Reports. On October 18, 2023, the court 

conducted a status conference to discuss discovery issues in these cases. At that time, the parties 

reported that there was a concrete dispute regarding the production of the expert reports that were 

produced by Defendants in the MDL. On October 20, 2023, the court ordered the parties to brief 

the issue of whether the MDL Expert Reports should be produced as fact discovery in these cases. 

(Doc. # 347). 

II. Legal Standard

Discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is governed in part by a principle of 

proportionality. Rule 26(b)(1) provides that:

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to 

any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering 

the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the 

parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the 

importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or 

expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within 

this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

The scope of discovery is broad, and its purpose is to empower parties “to obtain the fullest 

possible knowledge of the issues and facts before trial.” Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501 

Case 2:22-cv-00558-RDP Document 330 Filed 01/30/24 Page 2 of 6
3

(1947). Ultimately, this court has “broad discretion to compel or deny discovery.” United States v. 

Cuya, 964 F.3d 969, 970 (11th Cir. 2020); see also Josendis v. Wall to Wall Residence Repairs, 

Inc., 662 F.3d 1292, 1306 (11th Cir. 2011).

III. Analysis

Plaintiffs argue that (1) the MDL expert reports are relevant, (2) expert reports from a prior 

case are discoverable where the claims, defenses, or issues from the prior case overlap (as they 

certainly do here), and (3) production of Defendants’ MDL expert reports is warranted under Rule 

26 because the probative value of the reports easily outweighs the light burden of producing them.

(Doc. # 352 at 6-70. Plaintiffs also assert that they would be prejudiced if they did not receive the 

reports during fact discovery. (Id. at 7). 

Defendants counter that (1) Plaintiffs’ request for the MDL expert reports is a request for 

premature expert discovery, (2) even if the expert reports were considered “fact discovery,”

Defendants have no obligation to produce them now, and (3) Plaintiffs have not shown that the 

Reports are relevant. (Doc. # 359 at 7-8). Defendants have proposed that they will produce the 

prior MDL report of any expert from whom they also offer opinions in these cases. (Id. at 8). 

In reply, Plaintiffs assert that the expert reports (1) have been properly requested, (2) are 

relevant, (3) are discoverable, (4) are needed to conduct fact discovery, and (5) contain admissible 

evidence. They also contend that production of the reports would not impose undue burden or 

prejudice on Defendants. (Doc. # 363 at 5). 

A. A Request for Expert Reports in Prior Cases is Fact Discovery

Defendants seek to delay production until the period for expert discovery and then only 

produce the reports of experts also identified in these cases. However, the court readily concludes 

that discovery of Defendants’ expert reports produced in the MDL is actually fact discovery. See

Case 2:22-cv-00558-RDP Document 330 Filed 01/30/24 Page 3 of 6
4

Colonial BancGroup Inc. v. PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2016 WL 9687001, at *2 (M.D. Ala. 

Jan. 22, 2016) (“the Court views the discovery of PWC’s expert deposition testimony in other 

cases as fact discovery in this case”) (citing Parkervision Inc., v. Qualcomm Inc. 2013 WL 

3771226 at 1-2 (M.D. Fla. 2013) (“prior expert deposition transcripts and prior trial testimony 

transcripts ... [are] discovery materials [which] fall within the ambit of Rule 26(b)(1) for general 

fact discovery.”)). This court agrees that the requests seeking production of all documents 

produced in the MDL, including the expert reports, seek fact discovery under Rule 26. 

B. The MDL Expert Reports Are Relevant

These cases have a more direct connection to the prior litigation than in the situation where 

reports were produced in other cases. After all, Plaintiffs in these cases were ASO class members 

in the MDL who opted out of the Subscriber Settlement to pursue their own claims. The claims 

asserted in the Opt Out Complaints are the same that were raised in the MDL. 

Likewise, the expert reports address the same questions that existed in the MDL: the 

relevant product market; whether that market is two-sided; whether Defendants would enter each 

other’s territory and compete but for the market allocation; and whether the challenged restraints 

have anticompetitive effects. Therefore, the expert reports produced by Defendants in the MDL 

are clearly relevant to the claims in these cases. (Docs. # 352 at 14; # 363 at 6-7). Furthermore, 

prior litigation positions regarding the same claims are relevant to the claims and defenses in this 

subsequent, nearly identical litigation. Infernal Tech., LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 2019 WL 5388442, 

at *2 (E.D. Tex. May 3, 2019) (citing Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 2012 WL 1232267, at *6 

(N.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2012)). Therefore, the discovery sought is relevant.

Case 2:22-cv-00558-RDP Document 330 Filed 01/30/24 Page 4 of 6
5

C. Production of the Prior Expert Reports is Proportional to the Needs of the 

Case

“Proportionality under Rule 26 encompasses the importance of the issues at stake in the 

action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ 

resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or 

expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” In re: Takata Airbag Prod. Liab. 

Litig., 2016 WL 5795347, at *4 (S.D. Fla. June 24, 2016), report and recommendation adopted

sub nom. In re Takata Airbag Prod. Liab. Litig., 2016 WL 5844932 (S.D. Fla. June 30, 2016). 

The issues raised in these opt-out cases -- whether Defendants have entered into a contract, 

combination, and/or conspiracy to limit output, to allocate customers and geographic markets for 

the sale of commercial health insurance services, and to deprive the market of free and open 

competition -- are crucial issues. The amount in controversy is substantial because Plaintiffs --

organizations large enough to self-fund their medical plans -- seek treble damages under the 

Sherman Act. Defendants have easy access to the requested information, and Plaintiffs only have 

access to brief executive summaries of the reports. Both Plaintiffs and Defendants have significant 

resources. Any confidentiality concerns are resolved by the parties’ Stipulated Qualified Protective 

Order. (Doc. # 318). And, the burden and expense of production is virtually non-existent. 

Therefore, the relevant issues weigh in favor of allowing the requested discovery.

Moreover, the argument that Plaintiffs may obtain an unfair advantage by the production 

of Defendants MDL expert reports during fact discovery, before the period for expert discovery, 

rings hollow. Defendants were involved in litigating the Subscriber claims in the MDL for the 

better part of a decade. And, they already have access to the Plaintiff Subscribers’ expert reports

Case 2:22-cv-00558-RDP Document 330 Filed 01/30/24 Page 5 of 6
6

which were produced in the MDL. Therefore, the court concludes that production of the MDL 

expert reports now is proportional to the needs of these cases.

D. Determining the Admissibility of the Expert Reports Would Be Premature

Information sought in discovery need not be admissible to be discoverable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b)(1) (“Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be 

discoverable.”). Therefore, the court need not determine whether Defendants’ MDL expert reports 

would ultimately be admissible in these cases at this juncture.1

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ construed motion to compel Production of 

Defendants’ MDL Expert Reports that were produced in In Re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust 

Litigation MDL 2406 is GRANTED. Defendants SHALL produce the requested MDL Expert 

Reports within thirty (30) days.

DONE and ORDERED this January 29, 2024.

_________________________________

R. DAVID PROCTOR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1 Plaintiffs have argued that the reports are admissible because they have been adopted by Defendants. 

“[Federal Rule of Evidence] 801(d)(2)(B) establishes that a third person’s out of court statement is a party admission 

if the party, by words or conduct, manifests his or her adoption of its truth.” Lizotte v. Praxair, Inc., 640 F. Supp. 2d 

1335, 1338 (W.D. Wash. 2009); see also Whole Foods Mkt. Grp., Inc. v. Wical Ltd. P’ship, 2019 WL 6910168, at *2 

(D.D.C. Oct. 22, 2019) (“By specifically citing these portions of [its expert’s] report in a court filing, Whole Foods 

outwardly manifested its belief that the statements were true, thereby effectively adopting the statements under Fed. 

R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(B).”). Plaintiffs have provided a chart of court filings in which Defendants have cited to their

experts’ reports. (Alaska Air Case No. 2:21-cv-01209-RDP, Doc. # 352-5). Nevertheless, the issue of admissibility 

will be taken up as appropriate before any trial.

Case 2:22-cv-00558-RDP Document 330 Filed 01/30/24 Page 6 of 6