IQVIA INC.et al v. VEEVA SYSTEMS, INC.
2:17-cv-00177
| D.N.J. | Mar 30, 2024Background
- IQVIA and Veeva are rival companies in the healthcare reference data and life sciences software markets; disputes arose after incidents suggesting Veeva improperly accessed and used IQVIA’s proprietary data to build its competing product.
- Litigation began in 2017 when IQVIA sued Veeva for trade secret theft; Veeva counterclaimed for antitrust violations, alleging IQVIA engaged in anti-competitive conduct by withholding data access.
- Discovery disputes led to the appointment of a Special Master, who presided over motions involving claims of attorney-client privilege and allegations of evidentiary spoliation (destruction of evidence).
- The Special Master found that certain Veeva documents (the "DataDestroyed Spreadsheet") referencing data deletions after litigation began were subject to the crime-fraud exception, making them discoverable.
- The Special Master also recommended sanctions against Veeva for intentional spoliation (including deletion of a key database and emails), and partially overruled IQVIA’s privilege assertions regarding internal communications about their Third Party Access (TPA) policy.
- The District Court was presented with objections and appeals from both parties regarding these privilege, waiver, and sanction rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Veeva’s DataDestroyed Spreadsheet is protected by attorney-client privilege or subject to the crime-fraud exception | IQVIA: Document was prepared to facilitate/data destruction post-litigation; supports crime-fraud exception. | Veeva: Document was ordinary tracking under counsel's direction, no intent of spoliation or fraud. | Court: Crime-fraud exception applies; privilege overruled. |
| Whether sanctions for spoliation are appropriate for destruction of key databases and emails | IQVIA: Veeva intentionally deleted evidence central to claims, both before and after litigation was anticipated. | Veeva: No intent to destroy evidence; actions were in the ordinary course and before duty to preserve arose. | Court: Judgment on sanctions reserved; will be decided after completion of discovery/pretrial. |
| Whether IQVIA waived privilege over internal counsel communications about TPA policy by presenting counsel as primary witness for business justification | Veeva: By channeling defense through counsel, IQVIA put legal advice at issue, thus waiving privilege. | IQVIA: Did not rely on legal communications to support defense, so no waiver. | Court: Waiver applies; privilege overruled for communications at issue. |
| Whether communication-by-communication review of privilege claims for TPA policy materials was required | IQVIA: Broad waiver improper; each document should be individually assessed. | Veeva: All legal/business communications at issue should be produced. | Court: Special Master did conduct individualized review; limited waiver affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (scope of attorney-client privilege for corporate counsel communications)
- Glenmede Trust Co. v. Thompson, 56 F.3d 476 (waiver of privilege when counsel's advice is put at issue)
- Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Inc. v. Home Indem. Co, 32 F.3d 851 (privilege waiver by asserting reliance on advice of counsel)
- United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554 (purpose and limits of attorney-client privilege)
- United States v. Doe, 429 F.3d 450 (crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege)
- Bull v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 665 F.3d 68 (spoliation of evidence standards)
- Schmid v. Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp., 13 F.3d 76 (factors for spoliation sanctions)