Free Declaration - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 73.6 kB
Pages: 3
Date: June 13, 2005
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 689 Words, 4,358 Characters
Page Size: 622.08 x 792 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/8610/67-2.pdf

Download Declaration - District Court of Delaware ( 73.6 kB)


Preview Declaration - District Court of Delaware
Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR Document 67-2 Filed 06/13/2005 Page 1 013
EXHIBIT A

Case 1 :04-cv—01258-SLR Document 67-2 Filed 06/13/2005 Page 2 of 3
Si0ar~a, AHPS, SLATE, M EAGH ER s; FL0M LLP
525 uwvenssrr AVENUE
PAL0 ALT0, c:AL.u=0RNm 94;-10 n - leoe F`w`F;;§;N°m°ES
TEL: {650) 470-4500
FAX: {550) 47041570 LD?a;vc§§iit-ES
mm Dm www.skacIden.com S CO
Eiitiiigiitti
B‘5HEK@Si<4*\DDEN.COM 9%*6
BRlJ$SELS
June 3, 2005 "f_‘§§,§§,§'°
MOSCOW
PARIS
SINGAPORE
SYDNEY
TOKYO
TORONTO
VlENNA
Via Facsimile: 517-487-4700
Scott R. Knapp, Esq.
Dickinson Wright PLLC
215 S. Washington Square, Suite 200
Lansing, Ml 48933
RE: Mclfesson information Solutions LLC v. The T riZetto Group, Inc.,
CA- No. 04-1258 (SLR) (D. Del.)
Dear Scott:
Following up on our conversation yesterday, this letter will confirm our proposal
for resolving Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan’s ("BCBSM") stated concerns
regarding the subpoena we served on BCBSM in the referenced case. We hope that this
proposal is acceptable to BCBSM. As I mentioned, it remains our sincere hope to
resolve this issue without the need for court intervention.
First, we accept BCBSM’s offer to produce documents responsive to the
subpoena previously produced by BCBSM in the Thomas national class action
litigation. As noted in your motion for a protective order, BCBSM can search, review
and produce such documents without undue burden. Our only requested modification
to your proposal is that, in addition to producing documents referencing "l\/lcKesson"
and "TriZetto" that are included in BCBSM’s Thomas document database, BCBSM
also produce documents referencing the Mcliesson and TriZetto products at issue in this
case, ag., TriZetto’s Facets, ClinicaLogic and PACE products, and McKesson’s
C1aimCheck product). These additional search terms should, at most, only marginally
broaden BCBSM’s production.
Second, we propose that BCBSM produce documents from the files maintained
by BCBSM employees Sue Barkell and Bill Smith responsive to the following limited
categories (to the extent such documents are not produced as a result of BCBSM’s
Thomas document database search):

Case 1 :04-cv—01258-SLR Document 67-2 Filed 06/13/2005 Page 3 of 3
Scott R. Knapp, Esq.
June 3, 2005
Page 2
I. Marketing and sales materials received from TriZetto (including
any responses to requests for proposals (RFPs));
2. Materials from meetings or conferences with TriZetto. relating to
the purchase of Facets and/or any clinical editing/auditing component of Facets;
3. Presentations, memoranda, studies and/or reports reflecting
BCBSM’s evaluation of whether to purchase Facets and/or any clinical
editing/auditing component of Facets, including any comparison with or
evaluation of other products for performing clinical editing or auditing (e. g.,
McKesson’s ClaimCheck product); and,
4. Documents Sufficient to evidence the reasons for BCBSM’s
decision to require the integration of McI<§esson’s ClaimCheck product with
TriZetto’s Facets product.
These proposed categories are similar to categories agreed to by other companies
subpoenaed in this case, including other Blue Cross entities, and our proposed
production should not unduly burden BCBSM}
Finally, to the extent that the documents produced by BCBSM identify other
documents within the agreed scope of production, we reserve the right to rnake limited
t`ollow—up requests for those documents. We should not be precluded from seeking
i`oIlow—up production of documents that were, for example, inadvertently left out ofthe
initial production. We will agree that BCBSM preserves its right to object to these
follow-up requests. Again, we have made similar agreements with other subpoena
recipients, including other Blue Cross entities.
I hope this proposal is acceptable. We very much appreciate your continued
willingness to work with us and I look forward to your response.
Sincerely yours,
I Just so the record is clear, although we have agreed that other subpoenaed
companies could produce documents they previously produced in the Thomas
litigation, we have not agreed that such a production would fully satisfy their
obligations. This case involves issues not present in the Thomas litigation.