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. (RET.) SPECIAL MASTER.
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
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.
Interrogatory Nos. 29 & 30
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."
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
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.
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
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.
Interrogatory No. 31
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.
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
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 ...