Doe v. Intermountain Health Care, Inc

  • About Us
    • Our Approach
    • Our Mission
    • Parity Leadership Group
  • Parity Reports
    • Federal Report
    • State Reports
  • Know Your Rights
    • Common Violations
    • Glossary
    • Solution
    • What is Parity?
  • Resources
    • Parity Advocacy Resources
    • Consumer Resources
    • State Parity Enforcement Actions
    • Milliman Report Overview
    • Issue Briefs
    • Legal Cases
    • 2018 State Parity Statutes Report

Doe v. Intermountain Health Care, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, case no. 2:18-CV-807-RJS-JCB,  January 16, 2021).  Plaintiff was denied RTC care through a self-funded health plan.  Plaintiff alleges that Defendant misrepresented the reasons for denying coverage and withheld plan-related documents.  Plaintiffs filed a Short Form Discover Motion to compel Defendants to produce documents withheld as privileged. In compliance with the Court order, Defendants submitted an amended privileged log and the challenged documents for an in camera review to resolve the dispute. Plaintiffs assert 3 reasons why the disputed documents should be discoverable and attorney client privilege does not apply:  1) the documents were not created to facilitate legal advice; 2) they were not prepared in anticipation of litigation; and 3) they fall within the fiduciary exception to privilege.

Judge Jared C. Bennet rendered individual rulings for each email and the related documents withheld as privileged. Among other findings he noted that almost all of the documents attached to emails are not privileged.  The Court noted that documents are not privileged simply by sending it to an attorney in search of legal advice.  Judge Bennet worked through several scenarios to assess when documents such as emails are privileged and not.  Among other findings, the Court noted:

Documents that were created in the normal course of business not motivated by litigation cannot be protected under the work product doctrine. Thus, if attachments to an email were created for a business purpose and not because of litigation, such documents are not entitled to protection as work product.

Website enhancements in progress made possible by

Content Disclaimer: Parity Track is a collaborative forum that works to aggregate and elevate the parity implementation work taking place across the country. The content of this website is always evolving. If you are aware of other parity-related work that is not represented on this website, please contact us so that we can continue to improve this website.

Presented by The Kennedy Forum Scattergood Foundation