Medical Center at Elizabeth Place, LLC v. Premier Health Partners, 294 F.R.D. 87

Anthem is a non-party subpoena recipient in a civil action alleging a conspiracy to exclude the plaintiff from Dayton-area networks.
Plaintiff and Premier (with Anthem) are accused of pressuring insurers and providers to deny Plaintiff access or impose below-market terms.
Plaintiff seeks from Anthem internal communications, analyses, and paid-claims data to prove the alleged boycott and market impact.
Anthem has agreed to produce certain items (emails, some contracts with redacted pricing, and related communications) but objects to internal deliberations and other categories.
The court has previously ruled that Anthem’s internal communications are relevant and must be produced, subject to protective orders and confidentiality concerns.
The court resolves competing confidentiality concerns, balancing burden against probative value, and shifts some costs to permit production.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Anthem must produce internal communications, analyses, and deliberations relating to Plaintiff.	Plaintiff seeks those internal documents as probative of boycott.	Anthem should protect its confidential strategies and analyses.	Yes; Anthem must produce internal communications and analyses.
Whether Anthem must produce claims-paid data for Plaintiff at a cost shared by the parties.	Data is needed to assess Plaintiff’s competitive position.	Burden is undue; production should be minimized.	Cost-shift approved; Plaintiff and Defendants share reasonable production costs.
Whether Anthem must produce contracts with other Dayton providers and related negotiations.	Such contracts show market dynamics and support Plaintiff’s theory.	Pricing terms are confidential and production is unduly burdensome; some documents may be denied.	Pricing terms and internal communications about those contracts denied; some related documents (e.g., Dayton Health Hospital) ordered.
Whether Anthem must produce its policies toward physician-owned hospitals and related materials.	Policies are highly relevant to market dynamics and Plaintiff’s claims.	Policies may be confidential and not essential to defenses.	Anthem shall produce its policies toward physician-owned hospitals.

Northwest Wholesale Stationers, Inc. v. Pacific Stationery & Printing Co., 472 U.S. 284 (U.S. 1985) (before applying per se rules, evaluate whether practice restrains competition or enhances efficiency)
Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1978) (cost-shifting authority to protect against undue burden in discovery)
Atlantic Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co., 495 U.S. 328 (U.S. 1990) (per se plaintiff must show antitrust injury and competition-reducing effect)