PGHLIB-1085673.01-NCMORITZ

March 13, 2003 2:35 PM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

THE CHESTER COUNTY HOSPITAL, : CIVIL ACTION

:

Plaintiff, : No. 02-2746

:

v. :

:

INDEPENDENCE BLUE CROSS, :

QCC INSURANCE COMPANY, :

KEYSTONE HEALTH PLAN EAST, and :

KEYSTONE MERCY HEALTH PLAN, :

:

Defendants. :

RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

Pursuant to Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, non-party, Highmark, Inc.

(“Highmark”), by and through its counsel, Reed Smith LLP, serves the following responses and

objections to The Chester County Hospital’s (“Chester”) Subpoena Duces Tecum, dated

February 4, 2003:

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

The following objections shall apply to each answer provided by Highmark to Chester’s

Subpoena Duces Tecum and Exhibit A, Designated Documents to Produce for Inspection and

Copying (collectively, “Subpoena”) as though fully set forth at length therein:

1. Highmark objects to Chester’s Subpoena as unreasonably burdensome,

overly broad, unduly oppressive, and because it seeks immaterial and/or irrelevant information.

2. Highmark objects to Chester’s Subpoena to the extent that it suggests or

requires any burdens, responsibilities or objections beyond those set forth by the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure. Highmark specifically objects to certain Instructions accompanying

Chester’s Subpoena. Highmark objects to Instruction No. 1 given that nothing in the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure requires production of information in electronic format. Highmark

objects to Instruction No. 3 and will produce responsive documents as kept in the ordinary

course of business, as permitted by Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(d)(1).

3. Highmark objects to Chester’s Subpoena to the extent that it calls for

production of information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work

product doctrine.

Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 39-3 Filed 02/11/2003 Page 1 of 4
-2-

4. Highmark objects to Chester’s Subpoena to the extent that it requires

Highmark to provide information that is no longer in its possession, custody or control, or is

equally available to Chester or another party to this litigation.

5. Highmark objects to Chester’s Subpoena to the extent that it seeks

documents and information from all entities affiliated with Highmark, Inc., and any and all

products sold, marketed or developed by any such affiliate of Highmark, Inc. in that the

definition is overly broad and seeks information that is immaterial and/or irrelevant. As such,

Highmark, Inc. objects to the definition of "you," "your," and "Highmark" in the Subpoena and

intends to respond to this Subpoena only on behalf of Highmark, Inc. (including the names under

which Highmark, Inc. does business), and the products sold, marketed, and developed by

Highmark, Inc.

6. Highmark objects to Chester’s Subpoena to the extent it seeks confidential

and proprietary information, which may not be adequately protected by the protective order

entered in this case.

7. Highmark objects to this Subpoena to the extent it seeks the production of

documents which are shielded from production by confidentiality agreements entered into

between Highmark and third parties, and because it seeks the production of documents,

pleadings and information that have been filed under seal in another litigation matter.

OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DOCUMENT REQUESTS

Without waiving the foregoing General Objections, which are included in the

following Responses and Objections as if fully set forth therein, Highmark answers:

1. Documents relating to the Highmark Lawsuit against Blue Cross of

Northeastern Pennsylvania, including, without limitation:

a. all pleadings and other documents filed with the Dauphin County Court of

Common Pleas as well as the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Superior

Court;

b. any communications with either Blue Cross of Northeastern Pennsylvania

or the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association regarding Blue Cross of

Northeastern Pennsylvania (d/b/a First Priority Health)

c. any communications regarding the suit;

d. the effect on Highmark of Blue Cross of Northeastern Pennsylvania’s

operating HMO of Northeastern Pennsylvania,

Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 39-3 Filed 02/11/2003 Page 2 of 4
-3-

Response/Objection: Highmark incorporates each of the General Objections as if set forth at

length herein.

______________________________

DANIEL I. BOOKER

Pa. I.D. No. 10319

NATALIE CHETLIN MORITZ

Pa. I.D. No. 65174

P. GAVIN EASTGATE

Pa. I.D. No. 86061

REED SMITH LLP

435 Sixth Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15219

(412) 288-3131

Counsel for Highmark, Inc.

Dated: February 18, 2003

Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 39-3 Filed 02/11/2003 Page 3 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of Highmark, Inc.’s

Responses and Objections to Subpoena Duces Tecum, was served on the following via First

Class U.S. Mail on this 18th day of February, 2003:

Daniel A. Kotchen, Esquire

Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP

5301 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20015

Paul S. Diamond, Esquire

Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP

One Penn Center, 19th Floor

1617 J.F. Kennedy Boulevard

Philadelphia, PA 19103-1895

_____________________________

Counsel for Highmark, Inc.

Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 39-3 Filed 02/11/2003 Page 4 of 4