In re HIV Antitrust Litigation

INTRODUCTION

18 The parties have two discovery disputes: (1) the defendants’ request for production of medical 19 information about the named plaintiffs, which the plaintiffs contest on relevancy and privacy 20 grounds, and (2) the defendants’ subpoenas to 27 third-party health insurers and managed-care 21 providers for information about their respective drug formularies, evaluation of HIV drugs, 22 general policies regarding therapeutic drug substitution, reimbursement and rebates for HIV drugs, 23 and patient-assistance program funding, which the plaintiffs move to quash as improper absent- 24 class-member discovery.1 The court held a hearing on August 27, 2020 and denies production of 25 the medical information and allows the third-party discovery. 26 27 1 Letters – ECF Nos. 403–404. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint ANALYSIS 1. Letter Brief – ECF No. 403 As discussed at the August 27 hearing, the information (at least conceptually) is relevant to the typicality of the plaintiffs as class representatives and their antitrust injury. Cf. Plumlee v. Pfizer, Inc., 13-cv-00414-LHK (PSG), 2013…