United States ex rel. Fry v. Guidant Corp.

United States ex rel. Fry v. Guidant Corp.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Defendant Guidant Corporation has filed its Omnibus Motion To Compel (Docket Entry No. 305), to which Relator and the United States have responded in opposition (Docket Entry Nos. 333 and 336). Defendant Guidant has filed a reply (Docket Entry  [*3] No. 346-1), and the United States has filed a surreply (Docket Entry No. 352-1).

Guidant's motion to compel has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Docket Entry No. 345).

For the reasons stated below, the undersigned Magistrate Judge GRANTS Guidant's motion in part and DENIES it in part.

Statement of the Case

This is a qui tam action brought pursuant to the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3730. In summary, plaintiffs claim that Guidant has systematically and intentionally concealed from hospitals and clinics the availability of certain warranty and replacement credits due upon the replacement of implantable cardiac devices manufactured and sold by the company, and has thereby caused hospitals and clinics to submit to the United States false and overstated claims for reimbursement following replacement procedures.

Defendant Guidant has denied liability.

Guidant's Motion To Compel

In its motion, Guidant seeks three categories of discovery:

(1) Documents allegedly constituting the false claims or false statements for which plaintiffs seek recovery, including, in particular, certain cost  [*4] reports submitted by health care providers to the United States containing false or inflated claims;

(2) additional deposition testimony pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, after witnesses designated by the United States were unable to answer certain deposition questions; and

(3) the answer to a contention interrogatory served on Relator seeking "all facts and documents" supporting Relator's claim, to which Relator has objected on attorney work product grounds.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.