ST. LOUIS — A protective order was granted on July 17 to Primary Care Pharmacy against the discovery tactics of benefits manager Express Scripts Inc.
The ruling, by Judge Ronnie L. White of the U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri, also denied defendant Express Scripts’ motion for Primary Care Pharmacy to drop all "boilerplate objections" to its requests and provide "substantive information."
In a billing dispute, Primary Care Pharmacy is alleging that Express Scripts "improperly recouped" more than a half-million dollars related to Primary Care's purchase of diabetic testing strips and supplies.
Judge Ronnie L. White of the U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri
The plaintiff’s motion for protective order was filed to stop the defendant from pursuing additional written or deposition discovery that dealt with the ongoing case between Primary Care Pharmacy and Express Scripts, a third-party pharmacy benefit manager.
The protective order also included an inquiry by Express Scripts about Primary Care Pharmacy’s marketing efforts and business strategies, as well as its business relationship with Distinguished Pharmacy.
Although defendant Express Scripts stated these inquiries were necessary because they provided proof of alleged “fraudulent conduct in its submission of claims for prescription drugs or supplies to Express Scripts, Inc.,” White disagreed.
In the July 17 order, White stated that the defendant “never” raised the “defense of fraudulent activity,” either in pre-litigation procedures, or in its previous arguments.
White wrote that these inquiries would “largely detract from the central issues at hand and lead the court to mini-trials…while not making any progress in resolving the true crux of this dispute.”
The dispute between the plaintiff and defendant began in 2016, when the defendant lodged an audit of Primary Care Pharmacy. The audit resulted in an alleged purchase shortage “discrepancy of $520,042.83” for multiple drugs, which Express Scripts recouped from the plaintiff.
Primary Care Pharmacy asserted that the full recoupment “was not warranted” because the plaintiff had provided the required documentation of products, receipts and invoices, which included OneTouch and Freestyle products.
The plaintiff then filed three counts against the defendant; the defendant filed its answer and its defenses on June 2, as well as a counterclaim to recover amounts that the plaintiff allegedly owed due to “contractual breaches and unjust enrichment.”