The dispute centers on Buncombe County’s attempt to use a subpoena to identify self-funded plan sponsors that fall within its proposed class definition. The county argued the data was necessary to prove ascertainability and to support an expert’s damages model.
UnitedHealthcare objected, arguing the request demanded highly sensitive customer information that was irrelevant to the underlying litigation. The company also contended that Buncombe County already possessed sufficient data and was misusing the subpoena to wrongly challenge prior court orders in its first-filed case, an action in which Buncombe County was not a party.
Magistrate Judge Debra C. Poplin denied the motion, holding that Buncombe County failed to meet its burden of showing relevance under Federal Rule 26. The court emphasized that while a class must be ascertainable, plaintiffs need only demonstrate the method for identifying members, not the actual identities of those members at the pre-certification stage.
The court noted that Buncombe County did not explain how the requested ASO plan group numbers would ensure accuracy in its expert’s damages model, nor did it address UnitedHealthcare’s argument that extensive damages analysis is improper subject matter for pre-certification discovery.
The underlying lawsuits allege that Team Health engaged in upcoding claims to obtain more money from payors. Buncombe County’s subpoena sought information regarding employer-sponsored plans for which UnitedHealthcare provided third-party administrator services between January 1, 2018, and June 1, 2025.
The court clarified that while some courts withhold discovery on the identities of prospective class members until after certification, Buncombe County had not yet filed a motion for class certification in the underlying case. The court therefore declined to enforce the subpoena at this juncture.