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.

Prime Aid Pharmacy Corp v. Express Scripts, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

January 6, 2017

PRIME AID PHARMACY CORP., Plaintiff,
v.
EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC., Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          CAROL E. JACKSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's motion to compel defendant's responses to requests for production of documents. Defendant has filed a response in opposition and the issues are fully briefed. Defendant has also filed a motion for a hearing.

         I. Background

         Plaintiff Prime Aid Pharmacy Corp. is a licensed pharmacy providing retail and specialty medications. On June 25, 2011, plaintiff signed a provider agreement with defendant Express Scripts, Inc. On August 22, 2014, defendant terminated the provider agreement based on plaintiff's handling of seven reimbursement claims when patients did not timely pickup medications and a $750 fine plaintiff paid to the New Jersey Pharmacy in 2012.[1] Plaintiff alleges that these reasons are a pretext for defendant's real motivation, which was to eliminate plaintiff as a competitor to its own specialty pharmacy, Accredo. As support, plaintiff alleges that defendant has not taken action against Accredo for more egregious conduct. For example, plaintiff alleges that Accredo paid $54 million to the Department of Justice to settle allegations that it violated the False Claims Act and the Anti-Kickback Act. [Doc. # 33 at ¶¶ 44(a), 51]; see also ¶52 (alleging that defendant's wholly-owned subsidiary Medco Health Systems, Inc., paid over $100 million in fines to settle allegations of criminal conduct). Plaintiff asserts claims for fraudulent misrepresentation (Count I); breach of contract (Count II); breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count III); violation of the Missouri Prompt Pay Act (Count IV); unjust enrichment (Count V); promissory estoppel (Count VI); and equitable accounting (Count VII).

         On October 10, 2016, plaintiff served its first requests for production of documents. Requests 7 and 8 seek:

7. All documents related to terminations from the Express Scripts Network by Express Scripts of pharmacies, other than Prime Aid, based upon alleged delays in reversing submitted claims.
8. All documents related to decisions not to terminate pharmacies, other than Prime Aid (including, but not limited to, Accredo), from the Express Scripts Network, based upon alleged delays in reversing submitted claims.
Requests 10 and 11 seek:
10. All documents related to terminations from the Express Scripts Network by Express Scripts of pharmacies, other than Prime Aid, based upon payments made to State Boards of Pharmacies or Federal or State Attorneys General in response to State Boards of Pharmacy audits.
11. All documents related to decisions not to terminate pharmacies, other than Prime Aid (including, but not limited to, Accredo), from the Express Scripts Network, based upon payments made to State Boards of Pharmacies, or Federal or State Attorneys General in response to State Boards of Pharmacy audits.

[Doc. # 52-1 at p. 9]. The time period for these requests is July 25, 2011 through the present. [Doc. # 52-1 at p. 5].

         Defendant objects to these requests on the grounds that they are irrelevant, overly burdensome, and not proportionate to the needs of the case. [Doc. # 52-2 at pp. 6-8].

         II. ...


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.