Epic Systems and Particle Health are clashing over how their antitrust lawsuit should move forward, with each side telling a federal judge that the other is misinterpreting her recent order.
Here are seven things to know:
In letters filed Sept. 18 and Sept. 19 in the Southern District of New York, the companies debated whether U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald’s Sept. 5 order opened the door to broad discovery or only limited fact-finding on market definition.
Epic, in a Sept. 19 filing that was obtained by Becker’s, argued the court lifted the stay on the case solely for “limited discovery” on three narrow subjects related to market definition. The company said allowing other issues to move forward would create confusion and delay. Epic told the court that Particle’s proposal to conduct broad discovery alongside narrow discovery would result in “chaos” and undermine efficiency.
Epic said it expects the court will dismiss Particle’s claims once the limited discovery record is complete.
Particle, in a Sept. 18 filing obtained by Becker’s, said Epic is trying to stall the case by avoiding its obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Particle argued Epic must file an answer to the complaint, provide initial disclosures and participate in broader discovery beyond the three narrow subjects. The company said Epic admitted during discussions that it intends to seek an “early shot” at summary judgment on market definition but at the same time wants to restrict Particle from obtaining evidence needed to respond.
Particle urged the court to clarify that its order expedited market definition discovery but did not freeze other aspects of the case. The company asked Judge Buchwald to direct Epic to file its answer within 30 days, to allow expedited discovery without the limitations Epic seeks and to continue discovery on other claims including anticompetitive conduct and tortious interference.
Epic, in turn, told the court that only narrow discovery should proceed until threshold issues are resolved. It said broader discovery should wait until the judge decides whether Particle’s claims survive.
The court has not yet ruled on how discovery will proceed.
New York City-based Particle Health, a health data exchange startup, sued the EHR giant in September 2024, accusing Epic of monopolization, attempted monopolization, tortious interference and defamation. Verona, Wis.-based Epic moved to dismiss the case.
On Sept. 5, Judge Buchwald allowed parts of Particle Health’s antitrust lawsuit against Epic to move forward while dismissing other claims.
The post Epic, Particle Health spar over scope of discovery in antitrust suit: 7 things to know appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.
Health IT
