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.

HHCS Pharmacy, Inc. v. Express Scripts, Inc.

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

January 31, 2017

HHCS PHARMACY, INC., d/b/a Freedom Pharmacy, Plaintiff,
v.
EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC., Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          CAROL E. JACKSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on defendant's motion to deem its requests for admission admitted. Plaintiff has filed a response in opposition.

         I. Background

         Plaintiff HHCS Pharmacy, Inc., located in Florida and doing business as Freedom Pharmacy, provides traditional pharmacy and compounding services. Defendant Express Scripts, Inc., is a pharmacy benefits manager that processes and pays insurance claims for prescription drugs. Patients in plans managed by defendant receive prescription drugs from participating pharmacies such as plaintiff or directly from defendant through the mail-order pharmacy it owns and operates. Amended Complaint at ¶¶15, 19 [hereinafter, “Doc. # 47”].

         In May 2014, plaintiff joined defendant's network of pharmacies. [Doc. # 47 at ¶21]. On June 13, 2016, defendant notified plaintiff that it was terminating the parties' provider agreement because it had determined that plaintiff was a mail order, rather than a retail, pharmacy and that plaintiff mailed drugs to patients in states in which it did not have “appropriate licensure.” [Doc. # 54-2]. Plaintiff alleges that its termination is not justified under the provider agreement. Plaintiff also alleges that defendant did not comply with provisions requiring notice 90 days before termination and a 30-day period for dispute resolution. [Doc. # 47 at ¶¶29-31, 44, 52]. Plaintiff asserts claims of breach of contract, breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment.[1]

         On September 29, 2016, defendant served its first set of requests for admission. In requests 5 through 24, defendant asked plaintiff to admit or deny that, between January 1, 2014 and November 15, 2015, it (a) “mailed, shipped, and/or delivered” prescriptions to eleven states and (b) it did not have a “non-resident license” when it made the deliveries.[2] In responses served on October 28, 2016, plaintiff answered in the name of its associated pharmacy, CF Pharmacy, rather than itself. Defendant notified plaintiff that its responses were unacceptable and that it deemed the requests admitted. [Doc. # 56-5].

         Plaintiff served amended responses on November 9, 2016, in which it admitted mailing, shipping or delivering prescriptions to nine of the eleven states during the specified dates. [Doc. # 56-3]. With respect to defendant's requests that plaintiff admit that it did not have a non-resident license, plaintiff responded with a simple denial in response to three states to which it admitted sending prescriptions. [Doc. # 56-3 at ¶¶14, 18, 26]. For the other six states, plaintiff responded:

Plaintiff can neither admit nor deny the allegation without additional information due to the vague and overbroad nature of the request, and therefore denies same. Plaintiff will supplement upon further clarification and appropriate time limitation that will allow Plaintiff to make a reasonable inquiry so that Plaintiff can admit or deny the request.

[Doc. # 56-3 at ¶¶6, 8, 12, 20, 22, 24]. Counsel for defendant conferred with defense counsel about these responses and was informed that plaintiff would provide supplemental responses.[3]

         On November 23, 2016, plaintiff served supplemental responses to requests 14 through 24. [Doc. # 56-4]. In response to each request, including those it previously denied outright, [4] plaintiff stated:

Admit that to the extent prescriptions were mailed, shipped, or delivered into the referenced state and no license was held at the precise time, no license was in existence at the precise time, but deny that any prescriptions were mailed, shipped, or delivered inappropriately or improperly at any time.

         The parties were unable to resolve their disagreement regarding the adequacy of these responses and defendant filed the instant motion, asking the Court to deem its requests 14 through 24 admitted.

         II. Discussion

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a) provides: “A party may serve . . . a written request to admit . . . the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating to . . . facts, the application of law to fact, or ...


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.