Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02986/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02986-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332in Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

1 

14cv2986-LAB (DHB) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JOHN DOE ONE, JOHN DOE TWO, and 

JOHN DOE THREE, on behalf of 

themselves and all others similarly 

situated, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

AETNA, INC., AETNA HEALTHCARE, 

INC., AETNA SPECIALTY 

PHARMACY, LLC, and DOES 1-10, 

inclusive, 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 14cv2986-LAB (DHB) 

ORDER REGARDING JOINT 

MOTION FOR DETERMINATION 

OF DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

 On September 17, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Determination of 

Discovery Dispute Relating to Plaintiffs’ Application to Take Deposition of Elizabeth 

Engelhardt. (ECF No. 32.) Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court GRANTS

Plaintiffs’ request to take the deposition, as outlined below. 

I. BACKGROUND

 Plaintiffs brought this class action lawsuit to challenge Defendants’ implementation 

of a prescription drug program that would purportedly require HIV/AIDS patients who are 

enrolled in health care plans insured or administered by Defendants to obtain certain 

Case 3:14-cv-02986-LAB-DHB Document 34 Filed 09/25/15 Page 1 of 5
2 

14cv2986-LAB (DHB) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

specialty medications by mail order (the “Program”). (ECF No. 17.) On June 22, 2015, 

Defendants filed a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, arguing they had abandoned the 

Program, and therefore Plaintiffs lack standing. (ECF No. 32.) Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed 

a Motion for Determination that Plaintiffs are Entitled to Attorneys’ Fees Under ERISA 

and Cal. C.C.P. Section 1021.5 (“Catalyst Motion”). (ECF No. 24.) Plaintiffs argue they 

are entitled to attorneys’ fees and expenses because this lawsuit was the catalyst for 

Defendants’ decision to discontinue the Program. Defendants have opposed the motion, 

and contend that they decided not to implement the Program before this lawsuit was filed. 

(ECF No. 29.) In support of their opposition, Defendants submitted the declaration of 

Elizabeth Englehardt to rebut the chronology of events presented by Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 

29-1.) 

 The Motion to Dismiss is currently under submission. (ECF No. 33.) The Catalyst 

Motion is not yet fully briefed; Plaintiff’s reply is due October 16, 2015. (ECF No. 31.) 

 On September 17, 2015, the parties filed the instant motion. (ECF No. 32.) Plaintiffs 

request permission to take the deposition of Ms. Engelhardt prior to the Rule 26(f) 

conference. Plaintiffs argue good cause exists to allow the deposition because it would 

assist in determining the disputed facts regarding the Catalyst Motion. Defendants oppose 

the request. 

II. DISCUSSION

 In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d), discovery generally does 

not commence until parties to an action meet and confer as prescribed by Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 26(f), unless allowed by court order or agreement of the parties. Fed. R. 

Civ. Pro. 26(f). A court may permit early discovery if the requesting party demonstrates 

good cause. Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron America, Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D.Cal. 

2002). “Good cause may be found where the need for expedited discovery, in 

consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding 

party.” Id. In determining whether good cause justifies expedited discovery, courts 

commonly consider the following factors: “(1) whether a preliminary injunction is pending; 

Case 3:14-cv-02986-LAB-DHB Document 34 Filed 09/25/15 Page 2 of 5
3 

14cv2986-LAB (DHB) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(2) the breadth of the discovery requests; (3) the purpose for requesting the expedited 

discovery; (4) the burden on the defendants to comply with the requests; and (5) how far 

in advance of the typical discovery process the request was made.” Am. LegalNet., Inc. v. 

Davis, 673 F. Supp. 2d at 1062, 1067 (C.D. Cal. 2009); Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics 

Co., Ltd., 768 F.Supp.2d 1040, 1044 (N.D. Cal. 2011). 

 Here, the Court finds that, on balance, the factors set forth in Am. LegalNet., Inc.v. 

Davis weigh in favor of Plaintiffs’ request to conduct expedited discovery. First, there is 

not a motion for preliminary injunction pending, which weights against Plaintiffs. 

However, due to the somewhat unique procedural posture of this case, there is a pending 

Catalyst Motion, and the discovery that Plaintiffs’ seek is directly relevant to that motion. 

Second, Plaintiffs request to take only a single deposition. Third, the deposition appears 

narrowly tailored to the issues in the Catalyst Motion. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek 

information from Ms. Engelhardt, who Defendants rely on in opposing the Catalyst 

Motion, about whether this lawsuit had an effect on Defendants’ decision to abandon the 

Program. Fourth, the burden on Defendants is relatively minimal. Plaintiffs request a 

single deposition, and have agreed to take the deposition in New York, close to Ms. 

Engelhardt’s business office. 

 Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiff has requested discovery to start fairly far in 

advance of the normal course of discovery in this district. Defendants argue it would be 

unreasonable and unduly burdensome to allow expedited discovery in light of the pending 

Motion to Dismiss. However, given the unusual posture of this case, the disposition of the 

Motion to Dismiss may not necessarily moot Plaintiffs’ Catalyst Motion. In addition, if 

Plaintiffs are required to wait to take discovery in the normal course, they will not have an 

opportunity to obtain discovery regarding Defendants’ decision to abandon the Program 

before the Catalyst Motion is decided. Therefore, although a motion to dismiss may weigh 

against expedited discovery in some cases, the Court finds that in the particular 

circumstances of this action, where there is also a pending Catalyst Motion, early discovery 

is appropriate. 

Case 3:14-cv-02986-LAB-DHB Document 34 Filed 09/25/15 Page 3 of 5
4 

14cv2986-LAB (DHB) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 Defendants also argue the deposition is inappropriate because much of the testimony 

Plaintiffs are likely to seek is protected by the attorney-client privilege. Plaintiffs counter 

that Defendants have implicitly waived any attorney-client privilege regarding their 

decision to abandon the Program. The Court does not find, on the record before it, that 

there has been an implied waiver of the attorney-client privilege. Defendants have not 

asserted an advice of counsel defense or taken any other affirmative act that would signal 

an implied waiver of the attorney-client privilege has occurred. See Laser Industries Inc. 

v. Reliant Technologies, Inc., 167 F.R.D. 417, 446 (N.D. Cal. 1996) (stating “[a]n implied 

waiver of the privilege occurs if ‘(1) [t]he party asserting the privilege acts affirmatively 

(2) to place the privileged communications in issue between the party seeking discovery 

and itself (3) such that denying access to the communication becomes manifestly unfair to 

the party seeking discovery.’”). Therefore, the Court declines to find Defendants’ have 

waived the attorney-client privilege at this time. The Court further finds that it is premature 

to rule on Defendants’ general claims of attorney-client privilege because no specific 

question or line of inquiry have been posed for the Court to consider. However, the Court 

notes that Defendants asserted in the Motion to Dismiss that the reason they abandoned the 

Program was “a business decision.” (ECF No. 29 at 7.) Therefore, Plaintiffs may be able 

to inquire about Defendants’ business decisions and the timing thereof, without invading 

the attorney-client privilege. 

 In sum, the Court finds Plaintiff has shown good cause for early discovery. The 

information sought through the proposed deposition is relevant to the pending Catalyst 

Motion and is likely to assist the Court in resolving the motion. However, the Court finds 

the deposition should be limited in duration. The Court has reviewed Ms. Engelhardt’s 

declaration and determines that four (4) hours should be more than sufficient time for 

Plaintiffs to inquire about Defendants’ claims regarding their decision to discontinue the 

Program. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 3:14-cv-02986-LAB-DHB Document 34 Filed 09/25/15 Page 4 of 5
5 

14cv2986-LAB (DHB) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

III. CONCLUSION

 Plaintiffs have shown good cause for the early deposition of Elizabeth Engelhardt. 

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs are permitted to depose Ms. 

Engelhardt in accordance with the terms of this order. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 25, 2015 

Case 3:14-cv-02986-LAB-DHB Document 34 Filed 09/25/15 Page 5 of 5