Corvese v. Medco Containment Services, Inc.

• Citation: 687 A.2d 880
• Decision Date: 10 January 1997
• Docket Number: No. 95-567,95-567
• Parties: E. David CORVESE, Ernest Corvese as Trustee of the E. David Corvese Irrevocable Trust, Beverly A. Mosher, Barbara Schermack, as Trustee of the Beverly A. Mosher Irrevocable Trust, Todd R. Palmieri, and Charles Hoffman v. MEDCO CONTAINMENT SERVICES, INC., et al. M.P.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Page 880

687 A.2d 880

E. David CORVESE, Ernest Corvese as Trustee of the E. David Corvese Irrevocable Trust, Beverly A. Mosher, Barbara Schermack, as Trustee of the Beverly A. Mosher Irrevocable Trust, Todd R. Palmieri, and Charles Hoffman v. MEDCO CONTAINMENT SERVICES, INC., et al.

No. 95-567 M.P.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Jan. 10, 1997.

Robert Corrente, Providence, Anthony F. Cottone, for Plaintiff.

Charles J. McGovern, Robin L. Main, Michele A. Almon, Providence, M.'Liss Adamo Renaldi, for Defendant.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This case came before the court for oral argument November 4, 1996, pursuant to an order that directed the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in the petition for certiorari that had been filed by Medco Containment Services, Inc. (Medco), should not be summarily decided. After hearing the arguments of counsel and examining the briefs filed by the parties, we are of the opinion that cause has not been shown and that the issues should be decided at this time. This petition for certiorari seeks review of a discovery order entered by a justice of the Superior Court in the following circumstances.

The underlying litigation consists of a civil action filed by former officers and shareholders of Payer Prescribing Information, Inc. (PPI), a corporation which had furnished informational products, marketing analysis, and consulting services to the pharmaceutical industry. The plaintiffs below allege that defendant Medco and its affiliated defendants have committed breach of contract, tortious interference with contract, securities and common-law fraud, and misrepresentation in connection with its purchase of PPI. In the course of discovery plaintiffs filed their first request for production of documents that included request No. 18, which sought production of

"[a]ny documents which discuss, refer or relate in any way to any rebates, chargebacks, or other forms of product discounts received by Medco, or by any subsidiary or affiliate of Medco, from any pharmaceutical companies during the period January 1, 1992 to the present."

This request for production was made on June 8, 1994. Medco neither objected to the request, nor responded in any way by producing any of the documents requested. On September 29, 1994, plaintiffs filed a motion to compel production. In response to this motion Medco requested an extension of time. On October 17, 1994, a justice of the Superior Court denied the motion to compel and granted Medco's motion for extension of time, thereby requiring production by October 30, 1994. On November 2, 1994, Medco filed a boiler-plate response to request No. 18 citing the attorney-client and attorney work product doctrines as reasons for non-production of the required documents. On November 14, 1994, plaintiffs filed a motion to compel further responses to its request for production, noting that no privilege log had been produced.

On November 23, 1994, a justice of the Superior Court ordered Medco to produce the requested documents and a privilege log on or before December 21, 1994. Despite this order Medco failed to produce the requested documents and privilege log by the close of business on December 21, 1994.

On March 14, 1995, plaintiffs filed their first motion to default Medco for failure to respond. On March 23, 1995, plaintiffs' motion to default Medco was granted, defendants having failed to appear or object. On March 28, 1995, the parties filed a consent decree vacating the order of default by reason of a claim by Medco's counsel that she had not received a copy of the motion in the mail.

On May 9, 1995, Medco for the first time interposed a supplemental objection on the ground that certain unspecified documents that had been required to be produced in response to request No. 18 were "business sensitive, proprietary, and confidential." On May 25, 1995, plaintiffs filed a second motion to default Medco for its failure to comply with the order of November 23, 1994. Medco objected on June 12 to the motion to default. On August 1, 1995,...