BENJAMIN H. SETTLE, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Franciscan Health System and Franciscan Medical Group's ("Franciscan") motion to compel (Dkt. 84). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby grants the motion for the reasons stated herein.
On August 31, 2017, the State filed a complaint against Defendants Franciscan, The Doctors Clinic (TDC"), and WestSound Orthopaedics, P.S. ("WestSound"), asserting a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, and the Washington Consumer Protection Act ("CPA"), RCW Chapter 19.86; an unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1 and the CPA; and violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 18, and the CPA. Dkt. 1 ("Compl."). In general, the State asserts that Franciscan's purchase of TDC and WestSound has harmed competition for health care services on the Kitsap Peninsula.
On December 29, 2017, Franciscan served Interested Party First Choice Health Network, Inc. ("First Choice") with a document subpoena and deposition subpoena seeking documents and testimony on a range of topics related to the State's complaint. Dkt. 85-2. On January 26, 2018, First Choice responded with ten general objections and twelve specific objections. Dkt. 85-3. For the next two months, the parties negotiated solutions to the requests and objections.
On March 22, 2018, Franciscan filed the instant motion to compel stating that the parties have reached agreement on some issues and need direction from the Court on other issues. Dkt. 84. On April 2, 2018, First Choice responded. Dkt. 90. On April 5, 2018, Interested Parties Aetna, Inc., Cambia Health Solutions, Inc, Regence Blueshield of Washington, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Washington, and United Healthcare Services, LLC filed briefs requesting that the Court defer ruling on some of the requests until all impacted parties have an opportunity to resolve outstanding objections. Dkts. 94-96. On April 6, 2018, Franciscan replied. Dkt. 103.
Any motion for an order compelling disclosure or discovery must include a certification, in the motion or in a declaration or affidavit, that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action. Local Rule 37(a)(1).
In this case, First Choice argues that the Court should strike Franciscan's motion because Franciscan failed to meet and confer before filing the motion. Dkt. 90 at 7. The parties have been negotiating the responses and objections for months. The Court concludes that such negotiations satisfy the meet and confer requirement even in the absence of a specific meet and confer regarding the limited contents of the motion to compel. Therefore, the Court will address the merits of the motion.
The parties agree that the remaining disputes are requests for production six and eight. Dkt. 90 at 9; Dkt. 103-1. These requests are as follows:
Dkt. 85-2 at 20.
First Choice objects to these requests because the information is highly confidential and production would be unduly burdensome. These objections are unpersuasive. First, the parties have entered into an extensive protective order that provides for appropriate handling of highly confidential information. First Choice fails to provide any legitimate argument why its information should not be disclosed despite these protections.
Second, First Choice has failed to provide any information regarding how the act of producing these documents results in an undue burden. Instead, First Choice submits a conclusory declaration stating that each contract would have to be reviewed and, in some cases, First Choice would have to seek consent from the other party to the contract. Dkt. 92, ¶ 13. This is the type of conclusory statement that the Court routinely rejects. The Court concedes that any response would most likely be burdensome, but First Choice must submit evidence that this response falls into the category of undue burden. In the absence of such evidence, First Choice's objection is unsubstantiated. Therefore, the Court grants the motion to compel.
Finally, regarding the other interested parties' requests to postpone ruling on the motion, the Court finds no merit in the requests. If confidentiality is an issue, the Court is confident that the experienced litigators in this matter will be able to resolve the issues without Court involvement. If a party faces an undue burden in responding that Franciscan fails to address, then the party may move for a limited protective order.
Therefore, it is hereby
First Choice is ordered to produce the following documents within 30 days of this order:
In producing documents in response to Requests 6 and 8, First Choice shall produce documents as they are kept in the ordinary course of business without redaction, unless (1) First Choice is redacting privileged material or individually identifiable health or financial information of a patient or insured, or (2) counsel for Franciscan agrees in advance that certain information may be redacted.