Humana Pharmacy Provider Agreement

There is no doubt that Humana presented the two formal agreements it entered into in the agreed order to resolve the request for a diplomat`s injunction. The parties did not accept any other findings. As a result, diplomat has the burden of proving an important reason or the need to expedite the submission of the additional documents he has requested. In the agreed order that resolved the diplomat`s injunction request, the parties agreed that Humana would present its two form agreements entitled “Pharmacy Provider Agreement” and “Specialty Pharmacy Participation Agreement” and that they would “meet and discuss the exchange of additional discoveries that they deem necessary for the injunction.” (Paragraph 21, Mot. for Produc., ex. A, Defined order ¶ 5.) Subsequently, diplomat Humana requested the drafting of a document requesting: (1) the pharmacy supplier agreements concluded by Humana after July 2, 2008; 2) Humana`s guidelines regarding retail, pharmacy and/or specialty pharmacy networks; (3) Humana`s form provider agreements; (4) The reimbursement rates for Humana pharmacists after 2 July 2008; (5) documents relating to Humana`s plans to acquire, own or operate a pharmacy supplier; and (6) documents relating to humana`s DPA negotiations with diplomats since 1 September 2007. The diplomat then requested additional documents regarding Humana`s communication with members, doctors, and Medicare and Medicaid Services centers. (Word for producer, e.g. B C.) Diplomate is seeking an injunction that requires Humana to present these documents promptly before the hearing on the injunction application, as it says the documents will help diplomate demonstrate that it is likely that he will be successful on the merits of his claims. .

A party seeking an expedited discovery before a conference under Article 26(f) has the burden of showing the good. An exception applies to cases where a court orders such a discovery. The courts in this circle are asking. Diplomat did not identify the nature of the issue to be decided on the merits, nor the relevance of the discovery requested to factual issues that must be resolved at the summary hearing in his initial application and memorial. To date, the diplomat has not responded or requested the opportunity to respond to Humana`s opposition to his request for accelerated discovery. The court concluded that diplomat had not fulfilled his burden of proving a good reason or the need for accelerated discovery. The diplomat`s request for an acceleration of production is rejected accordingly. The request for an injunction submitted by diplomat aims to prevent Humana from terminating the pharmacy provider (AAA) agreement of the parties until the end of the arbitration procedure of the parties or from offering an appropriate, relevant and non-discriminatory standard contract until Humana Diplomat offers a standard contract. (Dkt. n° 4, distance message, e.g.

1D.) Humana rejects the request for expedited presentation of a diplomat because it argues that the documents are not relevant to the decision on the merits of the application for an injunction. As a general rule, a party may not require a discovery before the parties have granted, in accordance with Rule 26(f), unless this has been authorized by agreement or court order. . . .