United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
UPMC d/b/a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH MEDICAL CENTER, and UPMC ALTOONA f/k/a ALTOONA REGIONAL HEALTH SYSTEM, Plaintiffs,
CBIZ, INC., CBIZ BENEFITS & INSURANCES SERVICES, INC., and JON S. KETZNER, Defendants.
before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Limited
Reconsideration of the March 29, 2018 Order. (ECF No. 107,
errata ECF No. 116). Plaintiffs' Motion has been fully
briefed (see ECF Nos. 107, 114, 115, 116) and is
ripe for disposition.
instant Motion asks this Court to reconsider its Memorandum
Opinion and Order of March 29, 2018. See UPMC v. CBIZ,
Inc., No. 3:16-cv-204, 2018 WL 1542423 (W.D. Pa. Mar.
29, 2018) (Gibson, J.). This Order of March 29, 2018 required
that Plaintiffs produce all documents and communications in
response to CBIZ's discovery requests numbered 106, 107,
and 109-112. See Id. at*10.
argue that reconsideration of this Order is warranted because
- despite Plaintiffs' prior failure to establish the
applicability of the attorney-client privilege and/or the
work-product doctrine when Plaintiffs opposed the Motion to
Compel (ECF No. 75) filed by Defendants CBIZ, Inc., CBIZ
Benefits & Insurance Services, Inc., and Jon S. Ketzner
(collectively "CBIZ") -that "manifest
injustice" would result from the production of certain
privileged communications in response to CBIZ's discovery
requests 109 and 110. (See generally ECF No. 107,
errata ECF No. 116.) Plaintiffs have produced responses to
all other discovery required by this Court's Order of
March 29, 2018, i.e., discovery requests 106, 107, 111, and
112. (See ECF No. 107, errata ECF No. 116.) Only
discovery requests 109 and 110 are relevant for the present
Motion for Reconsideration. (See ECF No. 107, errata
ECF No. 116.)
Court is hesitant to reconsider this matter, especially given
that this Court expressly ordered Plaintiffs to adequately
argue and support their claim of privilege and provided
Plaintiffs with ample opportunity to make such arguments.
(See ECF Nos. 75-1, 78, 80, 83, 86, 87, 89, 92, 93,
94, 97, 99, 100, 103.) However, in their Motion for
Reconsideration and documents submitted to this Court for
in camera review, Plaintiffs have now
convincingly demonstrated to this Court that the
attorney-client privilege and/or the work-product doctrine
applies to most of the communications sought by
CBIZ. Furthermore, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the
compelled production of these communications would result in
a manifest injustice that would unfairly penalize Plaintiffs
for the mistakes of their counsel and would undeservedly
infringe upon the fundamental protections of the
because this Court agrees that most of the
communications in question are protected by the
attorney-client privilege and/or the work-product doctrine,
Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 107,
errata ECF No. 116) is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART.
in regard to CBIZ's discovery requests number 109 and
number 110, Plaintiffs need only produce ten
documents-identified herein and in the Order accompanying
this Memorandum Opinion -to CBIZ from those provided to this
Court for in camera review.
Jurisdiction and Venue
a Pennsylvania nonprofit corporation with its principal place
of business in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. (ECF No. 81 ¶
1.) UPMC Altoona is likewise a Pennsylvania nonprofit
corporation, with its principal place of business in Altoona,
Pennsylvania. (Id. ¶ 2.) Plaintiffs allege that
CBIZ, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business in Cleveland, Ohio, that CBIZ B&I is a
Missouri corporation, and that Ketzner resides in Maryland.
(Id. ¶¶ 4-7.) Plaintiffs seek damages
"well over" $100 million. (Id. at 10.)
Thus, this case is between citizens of different states and
the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000. This Court,
therefore, has subject-matter jurisdiction over
Plaintiffs' claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).
a substantial part of the alleged events giving rise to
Plaintiffs' claims occurred within the Western District
of Pennsylvania, venue is proper in this district under 28
U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).
Legal Standard for Reconsideration of the March 29, 2018
"A motion for reconsideration is a limited vehicle used
'to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present
newly discovered evidence.'" ]nckson v. City of
Philadelphia, 535 Fed.Appx. 64, 69 (3d Cir. 2013)
(quoting Max's Seafood Cafe ex ret. Lou-Ann, Inc. v.
Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999)).
"Accordingly, a judgment may be altered or amended if
the party seeking reconsideration shows at least one of the
following grounds: (1) an intervening change in the
controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that
was not available when the court granted the motion for
summary judgment; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of
law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice." U.S.
ex rel. Schumann v. Astrazeneca Phnrm. L.P., 769 F.3d
837, 848-49 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Max's Seafood
Cafe, 176 F.3d at 677) (internal quotation marks
for reconsideration are not designed to provide litigants
with a 'second bite at the apple.'"
Cole's Wexford Hotel, Inc. v. UPMC & Highmark
Inc., No. CV 10-1609, 2017 WL 432947, at *2 (W.D. Pa.
Feb. 1, 2017) (quoting Bhatnagar v. Surrendra Overseas
Ltd., 52 F.3d 1220, 1231 (3d Cir. 1995)). "A motion
for reconsideration is not to be used to relitigate, or
'rehash, ' issues the court already decided, or to
ask a district court to rethink a decision it, rightly or
wrongly, already made." Cole's Wexford
Hotel, 2017 WL 432947, at *2 (citing Williams v.
City of Pittsburgh, 32 F.Supp.2d 236, 238 (W.D. Pa.
1998)). "By reason of the interest in finality, at least
at the district court level, motions for reconsideration
should be sparingly granted." Cole's Wexford
Hotel, 2017 WL 432947, at *1.
Plaintiffs' arguments and the basis for this Court's
present decision fall exclusively under the third ground upon
which a motion for reconsideration can be granted, i.e.,
"the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to
prevent manifest injustice." Astrazeneca, 769
F.3d at 848-49 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Max's
Seafood, 176 F.3d at 677); sec also Cessna v. REA
Energy Coop., Inc., No. 3;16-cv-42, 2018 WL 816844, at
*2 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 9, 2018) (Gibson, J.). As stated
supra, this Court holds that this third basis for
granting a motion for reconsideration applies in the present