893146 v.1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

THE CHESTER COUNTY HOSPITAL : CIVIL ACTION 

 : 

 Plaintiff, : 

 : 

 v. : 

 : 

INDEPENDENCE BLUE CROSS, : NO. 02-CV-2746 

QCC INSURANCE COMPANY, : 

KEYSTONE HEALTH PLAN EAST, and : 

KEYSTONE MERCY HEALTH PLAN : 

 : 

 Defendants. :

RIDDLE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

 Riddle Memorial Hospital, (hereinafter “Riddle”) by and through its attorneys, 

Rawle & Henderson LLP, hereby files this Response in opposition to Defendants’ Motion 

to Compel Riddle to Produce Documents. Riddle submits that Defendants’ subpoena 

requests are overbroad, burdensome, unnecessarily costly and purport to require Riddle to 

produce confidential business information and/or records. Accordingly, Riddle moves 

the Court for an Order in the form submitted denying Defendants’ Motion. 

I. THE DOCUMENTS SUBPOENA SERVED BY IBC IS 

OVERBROAD AND PURPORTS TO REQUIRE RIDDLE TO 

PRODUCE CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION. 

 

 In the instant action, Defendants, Independence Blue Cross, QCC Insurance 

Company, Keystone Health Plan East and Keystone Mercy Health Plan (hereinafter 

collectively “IBC”) have served a subpoena duces tecum upon Riddle, a non-party, 

commanding it to produce, inter alia, confidential business information and/or records. 

(Subpoena attached hereto as Exhibit “A”). On July 7, 2003, Riddle timely objected to 

Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 151 Filed 11/06/2003 Page 1 of 10
893146 v.1 2

IBC’s subpoena requests in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(c)(2)(B) on the grounds that 

the requests were overbroad, burdensome, unnecessarily costly and purported to require 

Riddle to produce confidential business information. (Correspondence dated July 7, 

2003, attached hereto as Exhibit “B”). At that time, Riddle offered to meet with IBC to 

amicably resolve Riddle’s objections while providing IBC with the information necessary 

to its case without overburdening Riddle’s resources and/or intruding into its confidential 

matters. (Exhibit “B”). Despite IBC’s opinion to the contrary, Riddle has several valid 

basis for objecting to IBC’s subpoena requests, not the least of which is its own 

confidentiality concerns which have never been addressed. 

 IBC argues that “extensive litigation” has occurred to resolve non-party 

confidentiality issues. Indeed, Riddle was not present and had no prior notice of any 

court hearings concerning non-party confidentiality issues. (Correspondence dated 

September 2, 2003, attached hereto as Exhibit “C”). However, Riddle has been notified 

by counsel for insurers, including Aetna and Cigna, cautioning Riddle against production 

of its/their contract materials. (Correspondence dated August 20, 2003, attached hereto 

as Exhibit “D”). If in fact any confidentiality-based objections of non-party insurers to 

IBC’s document subpoena have been resolved by the Court then IBC should have no 

problem obtaining waivers from those non-party insurers (i.e. Aetna and Cigna) so that 

Riddle may produce the requested contract documents without fear of litigation. 

Alternatively, IBC could enter into an indemnification agreement which would protect 

Riddle in the event it is sued by one of its contracting partners as a result of the requested 

disclosure. 

 Contrary to IBC’s implication, Riddle is willing to produce some of the requested 

Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 151 Filed 11/06/2003 Page 2 of 10
893146 v.1 3

documents to the extent that they exist as long as IBC, a multi-billion dollar corporation, 

agrees to pay Riddle’s costs to identify, prepare and produce the information. Moreover, 

Riddle has offered on several occasions to meet with IBC in order to discuss and resolve 

IBC’s document requests. (Exhibits B, C). Notably, plaintiff also served a subpoena 

duces tecum on Riddle requesting document production. In response to plaintiff’s 

subpoena, Riddle also lodged several objections. Unlike IBC, however, plaintiff 

amicably worked with Riddle to resolve the objections and Riddle produced several 

thousand pages of materials in compliance with plaintiff’s subpoena. 

Generally, discovery requests may be deemed relevant if there is any possibility 

that the information may be relevant to the general subject matter of the action. 

Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (1978); Fed.R.Civ.P. 26. A party 

seeking discovery, however, must demonstrate a real and practical need for the 

information. Consolidated Rail Corp. v. United States, 812 F.2d 1444, 1463 (3d Cir. 

1987). Standards for non-party discovery require a stronger showing of relevance than 

for party discovery. Zukoski v. Phila. Elec. Co., 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16187 (E.D. Pa. 

1994). 

Further, pursuant to the Fed.R.Civ.P. 45, privilege and/or undue burden are 

appropriate objections to a subpoena issued to a non-party. The party requesting the 

protective order has the burden of demonstrating good cause. Glenmede Trust Co. v. 

Thompson, 56 F.3d 476, 483 (3d Cir. 1995). “Good cause” is established when it is 

specifically demonstrated that disclosure will cause a clearly defined and serious injury. 

Id. In determining whether “good cause” exists, courts apply a balancing of interest 

standard. McCurdy v. Wedgewood Capital Management Co., Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. 

Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 151 Filed 11/06/2003 Page 3 of 10
893146 v.1 4

LEXIS 18875 (E.D. Pa. 1998). 

Riddle submits that the following subpoena requests are particularly burdensome, 

broad and intrusive and would cause non-party Riddle to suffer significant harm: 

Subpoena Request No. 9 

Documents that discuss, narratively or 

through numeric data, the reimbursement 

rates set forth in, and the profitability of, 

each of Riddle’s Health Care Insurer 

Agreements, (including but not limited to 

contracts, summaries and competitive 

analysis), but not routine administrative 

billing records. 

 Subpoena Request No. 5 

All cost and profitability analysis, by DRG 

and/or service line for inpatient and 

outpatient services. 

 Request No. 9 specifically requires Riddle to disclose sensitive contract materials 

with its contracting insurers in violation of confidentiality provisions contained within the 

contracts. Riddle has already been cautioned by several insurers not to disclose such 

contractual materials. Accordingly, Riddle risks potential litigation if it discloses its 

Health Care Insurer Agreements in compliance with IBC’s subpoena. Another 

significant concern is that disclosure of Riddle’s profitability and reimbursement rates 

will severely compromise Riddle’s ability to negotiate fair and competitive contracts with 

IBC in the future. Riddle is in its last year of its contract with IBC and anticipates the 

negotiation of a new contract. Riddle relies on its ability to conduct business with IBC 

without fear that IBC can use Riddle’s own confidential information against it in 

upcoming contract negotiations. Accordingly, Riddle should not be required to disclose 

such sensitive financial information as any disclosure will leave Riddle at a serious 

Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 151 Filed 11/06/2003 Page 4 of 10
893146 v.1 5

economic disadvantage and jeopardize a substantial source of its income. 

 To date, Riddle has already been required to incur significant expense in the way 

of employee hours, document reproduction and legal fees in this case. Fed.R.Civ.P. 

45(c)(2)(B) imposes mandatory fee shifting and directs the court to “protect” a nonparty 

from “significant expense resulting from inspection and copying commanded.” Thus, a 

court must determine whether the subpoena imposes expenses on a non-party and 

whether those expenses are significant. Significant expenses must be borne by the party 

seeking discovery. James Wm. Moore, 9 Moore’s Federal Practice § 45.04[2] (3d ed. 

2001). Here, Riddle submits that it has more than complied with its obligation to respond 

as a non-party in the instant action. Accordingly, if Riddle is required to produce 

additional documents in compliance with IBC’s subpoena, IBC should be required to 

bear the expense of not only the reproduction of such documents, but Riddle’s employee 

costs involved in searching for and identifying the requested documents. 

 Ultimately, defendants are wasting the Court’s time and resources by pursuing the 

instant Motion to Compel. As stated herein, IBC was offered several opportunities to 

amicably resolve Riddle’s objections to IBC’s document requests. However, there has 

been no good faith attempt by IBC to resolve these issues prior to the filing of the instant 

Motion. Notably, Local Rule of Civil Procedure 26.1(f) requires counsel to certify that 

“reasonable effort” has been made to resolve a discovery dispute. Such certification, 

however, is absent from the instant papers. Instead, IBC has the audacity to seek 

attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in the preparing, filing and presentation of its Motion 

despite the fact that IBC has ignored several opportunities to amicably resolve Riddle’s 

objections to IBC’s subpoena requests. Accordingly, this Court should deny IBC’s 

Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 151 Filed 11/06/2003 Page 5 of 10
893146 v.1 6

Motion to Compel in its entirety. 

 In the alternative, to the extent that Riddle is required to produce documents in 

compliance with IBC’s subpoena, Riddle should not be required to produce its 

confidential business records and/or information in response to requests Nos. 5 and 9. 

Moreover, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 45 (c)(2)(B), IBC should be required to reimburse 

Riddle for all costs associated with Riddle’s production, including but not limited to 

copying, employee hours and attorneys’ fees. 

II. RIDDLE WILL PROVIDE A WITNESS FOR DEPOSITION FOR 

 BOTH PARTIES. 

 Contrary to IBC’s view, Riddle and plaintiff have not purposely scheduled 

Riddle’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on short notice without consulting IBC. Riddle’s 

representative was originally scheduled in good faith for deposition for August 6, 2003. 

(Correspondence dated July 3, 2003, is attached hereto as Exhibit “E”). This deposition 

was later rescheduled until October 22, 2003, but was subsequently postponed. Riddle 

has always maintained that it will provide a witness for deposition to both parties. 

IBC’s accusation that Riddle is participating in gamesmanship in order to frustrate IBC’s 

discovery is discourteous and a misrepresentation to the Court. 

Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 151 Filed 11/06/2003 Page 6 of 10
893146 v.1 7

III. CONCLUSION 

 As a non-party in the instant litigation, Riddle maintains that it has done 

everything required under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in response to defendants’ 

subpoena. Defendants’ subpoena requests are overbroad, burdensome, unnecessarily 

costly and purport to require Riddle to produce confidential business information and/or 

records. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Riddle moves the Court for an Order in 

the form submitted denying Defendants’ Motion. 

 In the alternative, to the extent that Riddle is required to produce documents in 

compliance with IBC’s subpoena, Riddle should not be required to produce its 

confidential business records and/or information in response to requests Nos. 5 and 9. 

Moreover, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 45 (c)(2)(B), IBC should be required to reimburse 

Riddle for all costs associated with Riddle’s production, including but not limited to 

copying, employee hours and attorneys’ fees. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP 

By:_______________________ 

 Joseph L. Turchi 

 Christine D. Steere 

 Attorneys for 

 Riddle Memorial Hospital 

 I.D. No. 65294/84046 

 The Widener Building 

 One South Penn Square 

 Philadelphia, PA 19107 

 (215) 575-4200 

Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 151 Filed 11/06/2003 Page 7 of 10
893146 v.1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

THE CHESTER COUNTY HOSPITAL : CIVIL ACTION 

 : 

 Plaintiff, : 

 : 

 v. : 

 : 

INDEPENDENCE BLUE CROSS, : NO. 02-CV-2746 

QCC INSURANCE COMPANY, : 

KEYSTONE HEALTH PLAN EAST, and : 

KEYSTONE MERCY HEALTH PLAN : 

 : 

 Defendants. :

ORDER

 AND NOW this day of , 2003, upon consideration of 

Defendants, Independence Blue Cross, QCC Insurance Company, Keystone Health Plan 

East and Keystone Mercy Health Plans’ Motion to Compel Riddle Memorial Hospital to 

Produce Documents, and Riddle Memorial Hospital’s response thereto, it is hereby 

ORDERED and DECREED that said Motion is DENIED. 

 BY THE COURT: 

 

 _____________________ 

 J. 

Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 151 Filed 11/06/2003 Page 8 of 10
893146 v.1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

THE CHESTER COUNTY HOSPITAL : CIVIL ACTION 

 : 

 Plaintiff, : 

 : 

 v. : 

 : 

INDEPENDENCE BLUE CROSS, : NO. 02-CV-2746 

QCC INSURANCE COMPANY, : 

KEYSTONE HEALTH PLAN EAST, and : 

KEYSTONE MERCY HEALTH PLAN : 

 : 

 Defendants. :

ORDER

 AND NOW this day of , 2003, upon consideration of 

Defendants, Independence Blue Cross, QCC Insurance Company, Keystone Health Plan 

East and Keystone Mercy Health Plans’ Motion to Compel Riddle Memorial Hospital to 

Produce Documents, and Riddle Memorial Hospital’s response thereto, it is hereby 

ORDERED and DECREED that said Motion is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED 

IN PART. 

 Riddle Memorial Hospital shall produce, to the extent that they exist, documents 

responsive to subpoena requests Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11. Riddle Memorial Hospital 

shall not be required to produce documents in response to requests Nos. 5 and 9. It is 

further Ordered that Defendants shall be required to reimburse Memorial Hospital all 

costs associated with Memorial Hospital’s production, including but not limited to 

copying, employee hours and attorneys’ fees. 

 BY THE COURT: 

 _____________________ 

 J.

Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 151 Filed 11/06/2003 Page 9 of 10
893146 v.1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

THE CHESTER COUNTY HOSPITAL : CIVIL ACTION 

 : 

 Plaintiff, : 

 : 

 v. : 

 : 

INDEPENDENCE BLUE CROSS, : NO. 02-CV-2746 

QCC INSURANCE COMPANY, : 

KEYSTONE HEALTH PLAN EAST, and : 

KEYSTONE MERCY HEALTH PLAN : 

 : 

 Defendants. :

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of Riddle Memorial 

Hospital’s Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Compel Document 

Production was served upon the below listed counsel this 6th day of November, 2003, via 

hand delivery: 

Lewis R. Olshin, Esquire 

Seth A. Goldberg, Esquire 

Duane Morris 

One Liberty Place, Suite 4200 

Philadelphia, PA 19103-7396 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Thomas A. Leonard, Esquire 

Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP 

One Penn Center – 19th Floor 

1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard 

Philadelphia, PA 19103-1895 

Attorneys for Defendants 

 RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP 

 ___________________________ 

 Joseph L. Turchi 

 Christine D. Steere 

Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 151 Filed 11/06/2003 Page 10 of 10