Estate of Gene B. Lokken, The v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., 0:23-cv-03514

Background

Plaintiffs (Estate of Gene B. Lokken et al.) filed a putative class action alleging UnitedHealth Group and naviHealth used an AI tool (nH Predict) to make adverse coverage decisions, breaching insurance Evidence of Coverage (EOC) terms and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Judge Tunheim partially denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding several state claims preempted but allowing contract-based claims tied to the EOC to proceed.
Defendants sought clarification and Judge Tunheim confirmed the surviving contract claims are limited to breaches of EOC terms (not Medicare-preempted claims).
Defendants moved to amend the pretrial scheduling order to bifurcate discovery: Stage 1 limited to discovery about whether Defendants used nH Predict in place of physician medical directors for the eight named plaintiffs, followed by summary judgment; Stage 2 (class and expert discovery) would proceed only if named plaintiffs survived summary judgment.
Plaintiffs opposed bifurcation as inefficient and prejudicial; the magistrate judge held a hearing and denied Defendants’ motion to bifurcate discovery.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether good cause exists to bifurcate discovery	Bifurcation is unnecessary and would prejudice Plaintiffs by duplicative litigation	Bifurcation promotes efficiency and judicial economy by limiting early discovery to named plaintiffs and avoiding class discovery if summary judgment succeeds	Denied — no good cause; bifurcation would likely delay the case and prejudice Plaintiffs
Whether discovery should be limited to named-plaintiff merits before class discovery	Discovery should proceed broadly (including class-related discovery) because issues overlap and bifurcation creates disputes	Limit discovery to merits for named plaintiffs, then proceed to class discovery only if necessary	Denied — merits and class issues are enmeshed; bifurcation would create disputes over what is "class-related" vs "merits" discovery
Whether Judge Tunheim’s prior orders limited discovery to named plaintiffs	Plaintiffs: prior orders did not narrow discovery to named plaintiffs	Defendants: Judge Tunheim’s clarification shows contract claims limited to EOC and thus discovery should be limited to named plaintiffs	Denied — court read prior orders as not restricting discovery to named plaintiffs; claims are limited to EOC terms but not to discovery only about named plaintiffs
Whether bifurcation would conserve judicial resources	Plaintiffs: bifurcation would increase motion practice and judicial involvement	Defendants: bifurcation avoids costly class discovery if summary judgment succeeds	Denied — court found bifurcation would likely increase disputes and drain resources rather than conserve them

Key Cases Cited

Johnson v. Nekoosa-Edwards Paper Co., 558 F.2d 841 (8th Cir. 1977) (broad discovery should usually be permitted prior to class certification)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (class certification often implicates factual and legal issues enmeshed with the merits)