Medimpact Healthcare Systems, Inc. v. IQVIA Holdings Inc.

I. INTRODUCTION

18 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery 19 Dispute. Dkt. No. 263. The dispute concerns Plaintiff’s Request for Production of 20 documents relating to seven of Defendants’ projects: (1) India; (2) ANAM; 21 (3) Jordan/Hakeem; (4) IPC dClaim Portal; (5) QHIE-HUB; (6) Riayati; and (7) Injazat. 22 Id. Plaintiffs claim these projects “exemplify Defendants’ misappropriation of [Plaintiffs’] 23 trade secrets, fraudulent scheme to compete against [Plaintiffs] and efforts to conceal this 24 misconduct.” Id. at 5. Defendants argue none are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. Id. at 9. 25 For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part 26 Plaintiffs’ request to compel discovery regarding these projects.

28 II. LEGAL STANDARD “[B]road discretion is vested in the trial court to permit or deny discovery . . . .” Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b).…