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

October 9, 2018

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

          ORDER & OPINION OF THE SPECIAL MASTER

          DENNIS M. CAVANAUGH, JUDGE.

         This matter comes before the Special Master on Plaintiffs-Counterclaim Defendants IQVIA, Inc. and IMS Software Services, LTD's (collectively "IQVIA"), motion for partial reconsideration and/or clarification of the Special Master's July 19, 2018 Order and Opinion. After considering the submissions of the parties, based upon the following, it is the opinion of the Special Master that IQVIA's motion is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.

         DISCUSSION

         I. Standard for Reconsideration

         Only three situations warrant granting reconsideration: "(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court [issued its order]; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice." Max's Seafood Cafe v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). The moving party has the burden of establishing one of these grounds. Blystone v. Horn, 664 F.3d 397, 415 (3d Cir. 2011). The grant or denial of reconsideration lies within the discretion of the district court. N. River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995).

         The scope of a motion for reconsideration is "extremely limited" and should not be used to relitigate the case. Blystone, 664 F.3d at 415. "It is improper on a motion for reconsideration to ask the Court to rethink what it already thought through-rightly or wrongly." Glendon Energy Co. v. Borough of Glendon, 836 F.Supp. 1109, 1122 (E.D. Pa. 1993) (citation omitted).

         II. Request for Production No. 198

         Request No. 198

Documents and things sufficient to exactly set forth the date, parties, and terms of any non-disclosure or other confidentiality agreement IMS claims to have with any non-party under which quintiles disclosed any portion of any of the alleged trade secrets.

         Request No. 198 requires IQVIA to produce all of its non-disclosure and confidentiality provisions. According to IQVIA, these non-disclosure and confidentiality provisions are generally found in four categories of agreements: (1) client agreements, totaling tens of thousands; (2) third party access agreements, totaling many thousands; (3) hundreds of agreements with consultants, contractors, vendors and others who provide services to IQVIA; and (4) thousands of agreements with current and former employees. IQVIA argues that to comply with the Special Master's Order it will need to locate, retrieve, and review many tens of thousands of agreements. IQVIA argues that such an incredible undertaking is not proportionate to the minimal relevance of such documents. IQVIA argues that these documents will merely show that such confidentiality and non-disclosure provisions exist, and not instances to support Veeva's avenue of inquiry into whether or not there are situations where no restrictions are imposed to protect IQVIA's Market Research Offerings.

         IQVIA believes samples of the agreements it enters into with third parties for the disclosure of its Market Research Offerings should suffice; this would include samples of actual customer agreements and standard-form license agreements under which IQVIA disclosed any portion of its Market Research Offerings. IQVIA maintains it is also willing to produce its policies and procedures regarding entering into such agreements, including documents sufficient to show when they were entered into and why, and documents from custodian files that reference any situation where policies were followed or not. IQVIA then argues that should the Special Master conclude that reconsideration is not warranted, it will be impossible for IQVIA to complete the process of producing such documents within 45 days.

         Veeva argues that IQVIA raised the same arguments in opposition to its motion to compel, which the Special Master considered and rejected. Veeva argues that as a matter of law IQVIA cannot reargue a prior argument on a motion for reconsideration because it does not point to a new law, new evidence, or any manifest injustice. Veeva also argues that nothing supports IQVIA's burden argument. Veeva clarifies that it is not asking for agreements with IQVIA's employees or individual consultants/contractors. Veeva explains that its request concerns contracts between IQVIA and third parties, such as IQVIA customers, pursuant to which IQVIA provides data to them. Veeva argues that IQVIA makes no particularized burden argument as to the third party contracts it has already been ordered to produce. Veeva beleives that a large business entity like IQVIA keeps customer agreements in a known electronic storage location and should be easy to retrieve.

         IQVIA retorts that Veeva's position belies their real intent-that is, to create as much burden on IQVIA as possible to gain leverage in this litigation-as production of IQVIA's client agreements is both unduly burdensome and unnecessary. IQVIA argues that if Veeva is "only" seeking the tens of thousands of "contracts between IQVIA and third parties such as IQVIA customers pursuant to which IQVIA provides them data," compliance with such a request would require IQVIA to gather, review and produce all of its tens of thousands of client agreements between 2012 and 2017. IQVIA argues that the Special Master has already ruled that this is an undue burden.

         IQVIA argues that to avoid manifest injustice and bring attention to the apparent inconsistency in the Special Master's Order, IQVIA requests that the July 19 Order be revised to require IQVIA to produce: (1) a representative sampling of the agreements IQVIA enters into with third parties for the disclosure of its Market Research Offerings, including samples of actual customer agreements and standard-form license agreements; (2) IQVIA's policies and procedures regarding entering into such agreements, including documents sufficient to show when they are entered into and why; and (3) documents from custodial files that reference any situation where such policies were or were not followed. IQVIA argues that if after receiving ...


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.