Chiding parties, court grants doctor sanctions for manufacturer’s failure to disclose witnesses

In an animated opinion, a judge grants a request for sanctions against Boston Scientific for failure to disclose witnesses after a long history of discovery disputes.

Noting that it was “[c]learly. . . not enamored with the parties’ conduct,” a district court judge in Minnesota found that Boston Scientific Corporation (BSC), a medical device manufacturer, failed to fully disclose certain witnesses and therefore granted, in part, a doctor’s motion for sanctions in a False Claims Act (FCA) (31 U.S.C. §3729 et seq.) action. Although the court found that both parties “share the blame as to certain discovery woes,” it found that the medical device manufacturer engaged in a shell game by failing to disclose four individuals as having specific knowledge of certain relevant information (U.S. ex rel Higgins v. Boston Scientific Corp., October 16, 2019, Rau, S).

Discovery proceedings

Initially, the doctor filed a qui tamaction on behalf of the government, alleging that the manufacturer violated the FCA. The doctor claimed that the manufacturer sold defective medical devices and that it provided kickbacks. Following the outcome of several procedural motions, the doctor filed his Second Amended Complaint. The court began the road of guiding the parties through discovery. Initially, the parties appeared to work cooperatively and productively, parsing out electronically stored information (ESI) search terms and custodians. However, later, the parties reported that they were at an “impasse” regarding certain issues. The court provided a step-by-timeline of discovery, including agreements and disputes. At some point, it became apparent that discovery had broken down. During the course of discovery, the doctor filed several motions to compel. In each instance, the court found in the doctor’s favor.

Later, the doctor raised several issues, including the manufacturer’s last-minute amendment to its initial disclosure. Specifically, on the last day of discovery, the manufacturer disclosed seven new individuals it might use to support its claims or defenses, four of which had information about FDA correspondence and submissions. Those four, along with others, were not disclosed as custodians. The doctor subsequently filed this motion for sanctions.

The court found that the manufacturer left off from its initial disclosure the individual who was a “central witness” regarding the manufacturer’s communications with the FDA about the relevant medical devices, along with several other individuals. The court rejected the manufacturer’s contention that it had no affirmative obligation to amend its disclosure to add the individuals. With respect to one individual, the manufacturer claimed he was referenced in hundreds of documents, but according to the court, those represented only a small number of the total documents produced. In its ruling, the court found the manufacturer’s logic was flawed. Among other things, the court questioned how, if the manufacturer made a truthful and fulsome response to the government’s FCA investigation, it failed to recognize the import of the newly-disclosed individual’s knowledge. Instead, the court said it was convinced that the manufacturer engaged in malfeasance.

According to the court, manufacturer misled the doctor. The initial disclosures were the foundation for all discovery, and the manufacturer’s failure to disclose the newly-disclosed individuals prejudiced the doctor throughout discovery. The court suggested that the manufacturer knew what it was doing. The court claimed that the manufacturer’s failure to disclose was not an oversight, but a strategy that coincided with baseless legal arguments regarding that and other discovery issues, leading to gamesmanship the court said it wound not reward.

Turning to the sanctions to be levied, the court said that rules of procedure makes exclusion of evidence the default, self-executing sanction in the event a party fails to comply disclosure rules. However, the rule permits imposition of alternative sanctions. In this instance, exclusion of the witnesses’ testimony would be detrimental to the doctor and would reward the manufacturer. Accordingly, the court ordered the manufacturer to produce documents from the newly-disclosed witnesses and the doctor was granted leave to depose the four individuals. Additionally, the manufacturer was barred from using documents or testimony that it could not affirmatively show was produced to the doctor during discovery or in light of the ruling at hand. The manufacturer was also ordered to pay the doctor’s costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in filing the motion for sanctions and for the additional discovery.