RJ

RJ v. Cigna Behavioral Health, Inc.

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaFebruary 6, 20245:20-cv-02255California2,557 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 RJ, et al., Case No. 20-cv-02255-EJD (VKD)

9 Plaintiffs,

ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

10 v. TO RETAIN CONFIDENTIALITY

DESIGNATIONS

11 CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 189 12 Defendants.

13 14 Plaintiffs and defendants Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company (“Cigna”) and 15 MultiPlan, Inc. (“MultiPlan”) disagree regarding whether certain portions of three documents 16 should be designated as confidential under the stipulated protective order in this case (Dkt. No. 17 22). Dkt. No. 189. The three documents at issue are: (1) the expert report of defendants’ expert 18 Laurence Baker (“Baker Report”)1; (2) the declaration of Sean Crandell, Senior Vice President of 19 Healthcare Economics for defendant MultiPlan (“Crandell Declaration”)2; and (3) the expert 20 report of plaintiffs’ expert Research & Planning Consultants, LP (“New RPC Report”)3. 21 The parties disagree about the legal…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.