Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-03799/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-03799-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Benefits

---

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL 

on 

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., HARVONI

(LEDIPASVIR AND SOFOSBUVIR) HEALTH INSURANCE 

LITIGATION MDL No. 2720

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

Before the Panel: The UnitedHealth defendants move under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize 1

this litigation in the Southern District of Florida. This litigation currently consists of three actions

pending in three districts, as listed on Schedule A. Plaintiff in the District of Minnesota action

(Pieper) supports centralization, but requests the District of Minnesota. Plaintiffs in the Southern

District of Florida action (Jones) oppose centralization and, alternatively, support centralization in

their district. Plaintiffs in the Northern District of California action (Murphy) oppose transfer of

their action and contend that, in the event an MDL is established, their district should be selected. 

The Sutter Health defendants, which are named solely in the Murphy action, did not file a response. 2

On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we conclude that centralization

is not necessary for the convenience of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and efficient

conduct of the litigation. The actions unquestionably share factual questions arising out of

allegations that the UnitedHealth defendants unlawfully denied coverage for the prescription drug

 UnitedHealth Group, Inc.; United Healthcare Services, Inc., United Healthcare, Inc., 1

Neighborhood Health Partnership, Inc., United Healthcare Life Insurance Co., Optum, Inc.,

OptumRx, Inc., United Healthcare Insurance Company, United Healthcare of Alabama, Inc., United

Healthcare of Arizona, Inc., United Healthcare of Arkansas, Inc., United Healthcare of Colorado,

Inc., United Healthcare of Florida, Inc., United Healthcare of Georgia, Inc., UnitedHealthcare of

Illinois, Inc., United Healthcare of Louisiana, Inc., UnitedHealthcare of the Mid-Atlantic, Inc.,

United Healthcare of the Midlands, Inc., United Healthcare of the Midwest, Inc., United Healthcare

of Mississippi, Inc., United Healthcare of Nevada, Inc., UnitedHealthcare of New Jersey, Inc.,

UnitedHealthcare of New York, Inc., UnitedHealthcare of North Carolina, Inc., United Healthcare

of Tennessee, Inc., United Healthcare of Texas, Inc., United Healthcare of Utah, UnitedHealthcare

of Wisconsin, Inc., UnitedHealthcare of New England, Inc., United Healthcare of Ohio, Inc., United

Healthcare of Oregon, Inc., United Healthcare of Washington, Inc., United Healthcare of Kentucky,

Ltd., United Healthcare Insurance Company of Illinois, United Healthcare Insurance Company of

New York, and United Healthcare Insurance Company of Ohio.

 Sutter Health, Sutter VNA & Hospice Self-Funded Health Plan, and Sutter Health 2

Sacramento Sierra Region Self-Funded Health Plan.

Case 5:15-cv-03799-BLF Document 61 Filed 08/05/16 Page 1 of 4 Case MDL No. 2720 Document 24 Filed 08/05/16 Page 1 of 4
-2-

Harvoni to persons with Hepatitis C, and involve overlapping putative classes. But where only a

minimal number of actions are involved, the proponent of centralization bears a heavier burden to

demonstrate that centralization is appropriate. See In re: Transocean Ltd. Sec. Litig. (No. II), 753

F. Supp. 2d 1373, 1374 (J.P.M.L. 2010). Moving defendants have failed to do so here.

There are only three actions in this litigation, and the number of involved plaintiffs’ counsel

is correspondingly limited. The UnitedHealth defendants are represented by common counsel, who

are well-positioned to coordinate the litigation across the three groups of plaintiffs’ counsel. 

Additionally, one action (Murphy) raises case-specific factual and legal issues concerning certain

California self-funded plans and an allegedly new pharmacy benefits manager (MedImpact), retained

in place of a UnitedHealth entity, to administer prescription drug coverage. These case-specific 3

issues are likely to undermine the alleged efficiencies that could be gained from centralizing an

already minimal number of actions.4

Given the few involved counsel, the limited number of actions, and the presence of

significant non-overlapping issues in one action, informal coordination of discovery and pretrial

motions is practicable and preferable to centralization. Various mechanisms are available to

minimize or eliminate the possibility of duplicative discovery even without an MDL. Notices of

deposition can be filed in all related actions; the parties can stipulate that any discovery relevant to

more than one action can be used in all those actions; or the involved courts may direct the parties

to coordinate their pretrial activities. See In re Eli Lilly & Co. (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent

Litig., 446 F. Supp. 242, 244 (J.P.M.L. 1978); see also Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth,

§ 20.14 (2004).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for centralization of these actions is denied.

 The Murphy plaintiffs allege that they resubmitted claims for Harvoni coverage after the 3

Sutter defendants retained MedImpact, and that MedImpact denied the claims under its own policies.

 The filing of additional actions seems unlikely considering that the UnitedHealth 4

defendants revised their Harvoni coverage guidelines in January 2016 to eliminate the alleged liver

scarring criteria that are the focus of plaintiffs’ actions. 

Case 5:15-cv-03799-BLF Document 61 Filed 08/05/16 Page 2 of 4 Case MDL No. 2720 Document 24 Filed 08/05/16 Page 2 of 4
-3-

 PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

 

 Sarah S. Vance

 Chair

Marjorie O. Rendell Charles A. Breyer 

Lewis A. Kaplan Ellen Segal Huvelle

R. David Proctor Catherine D. Perry

Case 5:15-cv-03799-BLF Document 61 Filed 08/05/16 Page 3 of 4 Case MDL No. 2720 Document 24 Filed 08/05/16 Page 3 of 4
IN RE: UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., HARVONI

(LEDIPASVIR AND SOFOSBUVIR) HEALTH INSURANCE 

LITIGATION MDL No. 2720

SCHEDULE A

Northern District of California

MURPHY v. UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:15-03799

Southern District of Florida

JONES v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 0:15-61144

District of Minnesota

PIEPER v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED, ET AL., C.A. No. 0:16-00687

Case 5:15-cv-03799-BLF Document 61 Filed 08/05/16 Page 4 of 4 Case MDL No. 2720 Document 24 Filed 08/05/16 Page 4 of 4