Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

IQVIA Inc. v. Veeva Systems, Inc.

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

September 14, 2018

IQVIA, INC. and IMS SOFTWARE SERVICES, LTD, Plaintiffs/ Counterclaim Defendants,
v.
VEEVA SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant/ Counterclaim Plaintiff.

          ORDER AND OPINION OF THE SPECIAL MASTER

          DENNIS M.CAVANAUGH, U.S.D.J. (RET.) SPECIAL MASTER.

         This 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 provide full and complete responses to Veeva's Interrogatory Nos. 29-32 and documents in response to Request for Production Nos. 302-318. 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.

         DISCUSSION

         I. Discovery Standard

         Pursuant 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)

         In this 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.

         II. Interrogatory Nos. 29 & 30

         Interrogatory No. 29

         Identify with precision and specificity all facts upon which IQV1A based the statement in Paragraph 1 of its January 10, 2017 Complaint in this lawsuit that "Veeva has used the stolen information from IMS Market Research Offerings, and continues to use it, to develop and improve its own competing products and services and to compete unfairly with IMS."

         Interrogatory No. 30

         Identify with precision and specificity all facts upon which IQV1A based the statement in Paragraph 73 of its January 10, 2017 Complaint in this lawsuit that "Veeva uses IMS Market Research Offerings to regularly improve and enhance its CRM and MDM Applications to gain a competitive edge over IMS."

         Veeva explains that Interrogatory Nos. 29 and 30 requested information IQVIA had in January 2017 when it filed its Complaint. Veeva believes that the allegations made by IQVIA are false and that asking IQVIA what information it had when it filed its Complaint will demonstrate a lack of any evidence. Veeva argues these interrogatories are not premature because they seek information IQVIA had in January 2017. Veeva believes this information is relevant because IQVIA's accusations against it were made in bad faith. Veeva argues that if misappropriation is asserted at the outset of a case without supporting evidence that demonstrates bad faith. Veeva maintains that bad faith is a triable issue and one on which discovery is permitted. Veeva further argues that IQVIA's allegations of trade secret theft are part of its anticompetitive actions.

         IQVIA argues that these interrogatories seek the same set of facts as Veeva's prior contention interrogatories-Nos. 19, 20, 21, 22, and 25-all of which IQVIA has already responded to with all available responsive information known to IQVIA. IQVIA argues that the Special Master has already found that IQVIA sufficiently answered the previous interrogatories. IQVIA argues these interrogatories are duplicative, harassing, and improper. IQVIA further argues that Veeva's request for "all facts" is an improper use of contention interrogatories. IQVIA contends that the general rule is that interrogatories may ask for the "principal or material facts which support an allegation or defense." IQVIA argues that it has more than met this standard. IQVIA further argues that with respect to bad faith, it has a valid misappropriation claim and has provided evidence to date in support of its claim. IQVIA argues that Veeva is demanding that it demonstrate each instance of misappropriation by Veeva before it has obtained any real discovery.

         It is the opinion of the Special Master that Interrogatory Nos. 29 and 30 are not duplicative as they request information IQVIA had when it filed its January 10, 2017 Complaint. However, the Special Master agrees that Veeva's requests are "overly broad and unduly burdensome on their face if they seek 'all facts' supporting a claim or defense, such that the answering party is required to provide a narrative account of its case." Moses v. Halstead, 236 F.R.D. 667, 674 (D. Kan. 2006). Accordingly, with respect to Interrogatory No. 29, the Special Master will compel IQVIA to identify with precision and specificity the material facts upon which IQVIA based the statement in Paragraph 1 of its January 10, 2017 Complaint in this lawsuit that "Veeva has used the stolen information from IMS Market Research Offerings, and continues to use it, to develop and improve its own competing products and services and to compete unfairly with IMS." With respect to Interrogatory No. 30, the Special Master will compel IQVIA to identify with precision and specificity the material facts upon which IQVIA based the statement in Paragraph 73 of its January 10, 2017 Complaint in this lawsuit that "Veeva uses IMS Market Research Offerings to regularly improve and enhance its CRM and MDM Applications to gain a competitive edge over IMS." IQVIA shall provide responses to Interrogatory Nos. 29 and 30 within thirty days of the date of this Order.

         III. Interrogatory No. 31

         Interrogatory No. 31

         Identify with precision and specificity what information contends is or ever was an IQVIA Trade Secret in any data extract obtained from a third-party or otherwise accessed by Veeva in any manner IQVIA alleges to be wrongful. For instance (and by way of example, not limitation), if IQVIA contends that the entirety of the data, or any subset of the data, in the extracts from Shire produced in this litigation by Veeva at Veeva000001688 or Veeva000001689, this Interrogatory calls for IQVIA to specify whether IQVIA contends the entirety of each such extract is or ever was an IQVIA Trade Secret, or whether IQVIA contends some subset of data within that file (such as particular rows, or particular columns, or some combination of both) is or ever was an IQVIA Trade Secret.

         IQVIA responded in part by stating: IQVIA's Market Research Offerings are trade secrets. Accordingly, Veeva's access and use of those Market Research Offerings, including any portion of any Market Research Offerings, or any derivations from those Market Research Offerings, without authorization constitutes a theft of IQVIA's trade secrets; this includes the data extracts from Shire produced in this litigation by Veeva at VEEVA000001688 and VEEVA000001689. Veeva's General Counsel, Josh Faddis, conceded as much when IQVIA discovered that Veeva had obtained IQVIA Market Research Offerings from Shire and Mr. Faddis advised mat he was "embarrassed" by Veeva's actions. IQVIA incorporates its response to Interrogatory No. 14, which provides further details on IQVIA's Market Research Offerings.

         Veeva argues that IQVIA has never specified what precisely it contends to be IQVIA's alleged trade secret information that Veeva has misappropriated via particular data extracts from certain mutual customers like Shire. Veeva maintains that Interrogatory No. 31 asks IQVIA to look at specific data extract files produced by Veeva and identify what particular information in such extract files IQVIA alleges is its trade secret. Veeva argues that IQVIA has refused to answer and instead states in open-minded form that its trade secret "includes" any portion of any IQVIA Market Research Offerings. Veeva argues that now that IQVIA has the data extracts, there is no reason it cannot respond to the specific information requested by Veeva. If ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.