Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03504/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03504-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER CORCORAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CVS HEALTH, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-03504-YGR (JSC)

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE ON 

NATIONWIDE DATA

Re: Dkt. No. 149

This matter has been referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for resolution of 

discovery disputes between the parties. Now before the Court is the parties’ August 17, 2016 

discovery dispute letter brief relating to Plaintiffs’ request for nationwide transaction data from 

CVS. (Dkt. No. 149.) The Court held a hearing on August 18, 2016.

CVS produced transaction data reflecting purchases of drugs on CVS’s Health Savings 

Pass (“HSP”) program in 12 states and the District of Columbia—the states in which at least one 

named plaintiff resides or has filled a prescription for an HSP-eligible medication at a CVS 

pharmacy. Plaintiffs previously moved to compel transaction data from the remaining states 

where CVS has retail pharmacy stores (the “Nationwide Data”), but CVS refused to do so in part 

because the district court had not yet ruled on its motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims in other 

states for lack of standing. (See Dkt. No. 108.) The Court recognized that if the district court 

were to grant CVS’s motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs may not be allowed to seek certification of a 

nationwide class and therefore the analysis of whether the Nationwide Data is relevant would be 

different. (Dkt. No. 121 at 2.) The Court thus offered CVS the choice of (1) deferring a ruling on 

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel until after receiving a ruling on the pending motion to dismiss or (2) 

producing the Nationwide Data now in light of the impending class certification motion deadline. 

Case 4:15-cv-03504-YGR Document 152 Filed 08/18/16 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Northern District of California

(Id.) CVS elected to produce the Nationwide Data by August 26, 2016, and the parties stipulated 

to a briefing schedule for Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. (Id.)

Subsequently, on July 29, 2016, the district court granted in part and denied in part CVS’s 

motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 130.) Relevant here, the district court held that “Plaintiffs do not 

have standing to bring the common law claims under the laws of the thirty-eight states to which 

they have alleged no connection.” (Id. at 4.) The district court therefore dismissed the common 

law claims that Plaintiffs brought based on the laws of those states, but stated that Plaintiffs could 

move to amend their pleadings to include additional named plaintiffs from other states, subject to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 and standards applicable thereto. (Id. at 4-5.)

In light of the district court’s ruling, CVS argues that the Nationwide Data is no longer 

relevant information and so it should not be required to produce the data.

1

 (Dkt. No. 149 at 2.) 

Plaintiffs respond that the Nationwide Data remains relevant because their challenge to the HSP 

program is nationwide in scope. (Id. at 4-5.) The Court is not persuaded that the pricing in other 

states would, as Plaintiffs argue, be relevant to the alleged harm suffered by Plaintiffs as a result of 

CVS’s pricing in their own respective states, especially since it is undisputed that CVS did not 

report its HSP price as its U&C price anywhere in the country, and knew it did not so report. 

(Dkt. No. 149 at 2.) Nevertheless, even if Plaintiffs’ relevance arguments were accepted, the 

requested discovery is not proportional to the needs of the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

Plaintiffs seek transaction data for an additional 2,700 CVS pharmacies, approximately 35% of 

CVS’s domestic retail pharmacies (see Dkt. No. 108 at 4 n.5), despite not having a single class 

representative with any relevant connection to those pharmacies or their respective states. Such 

broad discovery is not justified.

Accordingly, CVS is not required to produce the Nationwide Data at this time. The Court 

therefore vacates the parties’ previous stipulation insofar as it required CVS’s production of 

 

1 CVS also argues that it is incurring “unnecessary costs” each day it has to continue collecting the 

Nationwide Data. (Dkt. No. 149 at 3.) The Court already rejected this argument at hearing on 

August 11, 2016. As the Court noted, CVS had the option to defer collection and production of 

Nationwide Data but elected not to wait; any costs that CVS has incurred or will incur are thus a 

direct result of CVS’s own decision.

Case 4:15-cv-03504-YGR Document 152 Filed 08/18/16 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Northern District of California

Nationwide Data by August 26, 2016.2 However, as proposed by CVS, if Plaintiffs move to 

amend their complaint to add representatives from new states, CVS shall produce data for any 

such new states within five business days of Plaintiffs filing a motion for leave to amend—that is, 

CVS shall not await a decision on Plaintiffs’ motion for leave before producing transaction data 

for the new states. Further, this Order is without prejudice to Plaintiffs renewing their motion 

should CVS raise a defense which makes the data from the other states relevant and proportional 

to the case’s needs.

This Order disposes of Docket No. 149.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 18, 2016

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

 

2

The dates related to briefing and hearing of Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification are 

unaffected by this Order. (See Dkt. Nos. 121, 122.) 

Case 4:15-cv-03504-YGR Document 152 Filed 08/18/16 Page 3 of 3