United States District Court, D. New Jersey
IQVIA, INC. and IMS SOFTWARE SERVICES, LTD, Plaintiffs/ Counterclaim Defendants,
VEEVA SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant/ Counterclaim Plaintiff.
ORDER AND OPINION OF THE SPECIAL MASTER
M. CAVANAUGH, U.S.D.J.
matter comes before the Special Master on
Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff Veeva Systems, Inc.'s
("Veeva") motion to compel Plaintiffs-Counterclaim
Defendants IQVIA, Inc. and IMS Software Services, LTD,
(collectively "IQVIA") to (1) compel IQVIA to
supplement its responses to Veeva's Interrogatory Nos. 4,
8, and 12; and (2) require IQVIA to produce documents related
to the United State and global or geographic areas including
the United States. After considering the submissions of the
parties, based upon the following, it is the opinion of the
Special Master that Veeva's motion is DENIED in
part and GRANTED in part.
to Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
parties may obtain discovery of "any matter, not
privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved
in the pending action." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1).
Discoverable material is not limited to that which would be
admissible at trial, but also includes any non-privileged
information that "appears reasonably calculated to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence." Id.
Relevance has been construed liberally under Rule 26(b)(1),
to "encompass any matter that bears on, or that
reasonably could lead to other matter[s] that could bear on,
any issue that is or may be in the case."
Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351
(1978). While relevant information need not be admissible at
trial in order to grant disclosure, the burden remains on the
party seeking discovery to "show that the information
sought is relevant to the subject matter of the action and
may lead to admissible evidence." Caver v. City of
Trenton, 192 F.R.D. 154, 159 (D.N.J. 2000).
"Discovery is not a fishing expedition." Arena
v. RiverSource Life Ins. Co., No. 2:16-CV-5063-JLL-SCM,
2017 WL 6513056, at *2 (D.N.J. Dec. 19, 2017)
Circuit, "[i]t is well recognized that the federal rules
allow broad and liberal discovery." Pacitti v.
Macy's, 193 F.3d 766, 777-78 (3d Cir.1999) (citation
omitted). Nevertheless, "this right is not unlimited and
may be circumscribed." Bayer AG v. Betachem,
Inc., 173 F.3d 188, 191 (3d Cir.1999). Pursuant to Rule
26(b)(2)(C)(3), "the court must limit the ... extent of
discovery otherwise allowed by these rules ... if it
determines that... the burden [ ] of the proposed discovery
outweighs its likely benefit." Fed.R.Civ.P.
26(b)(2)(C)(3). Courts consider "the importance of the
discovery in resolving the issues" at stake in the case
in determining whether the burden of the discovery outweighs
its likely benefit. Id.
Interrogatories 4, 8, and 12
seeks to compel IQVIA to supplement its responses to
Veeva's Interrogatory Nos. 4, 8, and 12.
Interrogatory No. 4
Identify any IMS, Cededim, or Reltio employee, independent
contractor, agent, or partner who discussed, evaluated, or
decided TPA policy, negotiated TPAs with any person, or
communicated with customers about TPAs.
Interrogatory No. 8
Identify any IMS or Cegedim employee, independent contractor,
agent, or partner who discussed, evaluated, proposed,
communicated, or negotiated any agreement, understanding, or
instruction identified in Interrogatory No. 7.
Interrogatory No. 12
Identify any IMS or Reltio employee, independent contractor,
agent, or partner who discussed, proposed, negotiated, or
approved any agreement ...