Estate of Gene B. Lokken, The et al v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
The Estate of Gene B. Lokken, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UnitedHealth Group, Inc., et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 23-cv-3514 (JRT/SGE)
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery
Responses and Production of Documents. (Dkt. 143). The Court heard oral argument on
the motion February 11, 2026, and took the Motion under advisement. (See Dkt. 157.)
BACKGROUND
This is a putative class action alleging that UnitedHealth Group, Inc., and
naviHealth, Inc., used an artificial intelligence program called nH Predict to deny medical
care coverage in violation of the terms of the Plaintiffs’ insurance agreements. Defendants
moved to dismiss the Complaint, and United States District Judge John R. Tunheim
granted-in-part and denied-in-part the Motion. (Dkt. 91.) Judge Tunheim determined that
several of Plaintiffs’ state claims were preempted by federal statute, but he allowed
Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing to proceed. He wrote that these claims “effectively arise out of
CASE 0:23-cv-03514-JRT-SGE Doc. 162 Filed 03/09/26 Page 1 of 14

2
[Defendants’] evidence of coverage documents because the question [is] whether UHC
complied with its statement that claim decisions would be made by ‘clinical services staff’
and ‘physicians’ when it allegedly used artificial intelligence.” (Dkt. 91 at 19.) Judge
Tunheim determined that these Counts were not preempted by federal law.
After receiving this partially adverse ruling, Defendants requested Judge Tunheim
allow them to file a motion to reconsider the Order. (Dkt. 95.) Judge Tunheim denied the
request but clarified his previous order stating,
. . . UHC requests clarification from the Court on the scope of the
contract claims and damages. The contract claims survived
preemption due to their independence from the Medicare Act, which
limited the Court’s analysis to the Evidence of Coverage (“EOC”)
documents provided by UHC. Accordingly, the contract claims are
limited to breaches of EOC terms.
(Dkt. 104 at 2.)
Defendants then filed a motion on August 21, 2025, asking this Court to amend the
pretrial scheduling order to bifurcate discovery into two stages. (Dkt. 115.) Defendants
proposed the first stage would allow discovery only for the “threshold factual question of
whether Defendants used nH Predict in place of physician medical directors to make
adverse coverage determinations related to the named Plaintiffs’ care in skilled nursing
facilities.” (Dkt. 117 at 7.) After the first stage of discovery, Defendants wished to move
for summary judgment to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists with
respect to the named Plaintiffs. Id.
In their interpretation of Judge Tunheim’s Order, the Defendants argued that by only
allowing the contract claims to proceed, Judge Tunheim intended to narrow the scope of
CASE 0:23-cv-03514-JRT-SGE Doc. 162 Filed 03/09/26 Page 2 of 14

3
discovery as to the named Plaintiffs allegedly injured by the breach of the contract. Having
reviewed Judge Tunheim’s Order, this Court rejected Defendant’s interpretation and denied
the Motion to Amend the Pretrial Scheduling Order. (Dkt. 130.) This Court concluded that
discovery would fully proceed as to the putative class action, from the beginning, due to
the enmeshed factual and legal issues comprising the Plaintiff’s cause of action. See
generally, Dkt. 130 at 5-7 (citing Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 351 (2011)).
The Court’s Order and Opinion should have made it clear to the Defendants that the scope
of discovery would go far beyond the named class members. (Dkt. 130.) Yet the scope of
discovery for the surviving contract claims continues to be in controversy. Many of the
same issues raised at the last hearing are before this Court again.
Plaintiffs move to compel the broad discovery of documents and answers that
Defendants refuse to provide in seven categories (A-G): (A) discovery regarding the
policies and procedures for post-acute care, (B) the development and use of nH Predict,
(C) the business acquisition and financial data regarding the financial benefits of nH
Predict, (D) internal and government investigations into UHC’s use of artificial intelligence
(“AI”), (E) naviHealth employee incentives for using nH Predict, (F) any oversight of AI
use by UHC, and (G) information regarding the employees issuing the Notices of Medicare
Non-Coverage (“NOMNCs”).
ANALYSIS
I. 	Legal Standard
Under the Federal Rules, parties “may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged
matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the
CASE 0:23-cv-03514-JRT-SGE Doc. 162 Filed 03/09/26 Page 3 of 14

4
case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in
controversy, the parties’ relative access to the information, the parties’ resources, the
importance of the discovery in resolving the dispute, and whether the burden or expense of
the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Also,
“[i]nformation within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be
discoverable.” Id.
The party seeking discovery has the burden of showing relevance before the
requested information is produced. See Hofer v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 981 F.2d 377, 380 (8th
Cir. 1992). Although discoverability is broader than admissibility, this standard “should not
be misapplied so as to allow fishing expeditions in discovery. Some threshold showing of
relevance must be made before parties are required to open wide the doors of discovery
and to produce a variety of information which does not reasonably bear upon the issues in
the case.” Id. The party resisting production “bears the burden of establishing lack of
relevancy or undue burden.” Inline Packaging, LLC v. Graphing Packaging Int’l, Inc., Case
no. 15-cv-3183 (ADM/LIB), 2016 WL 6997113, at *7 (D. Minn. Sep. 6, 2016) (quoting
Saint Paul Reinsurance Co. v. Com. Fin. Corp., 198 F.R.D. 508, 511 (N.D. Iowa Nov. 22,
2000)).
Courts have broad discretion in handling pretrial procedure and discovery. See, e.g.,
Rowles v. Curators of Univ. of Mo., 983 F.3d 345, 353 (8th Cir. 2020) (“A district court has
very wide discretion in handling pretrial discovery . . . .” (quotation omitted)); Solutran,
Inc. v. U.S. Bancorp, Case no. 13-cv-2637 (SRN/BRT), 2016 WL 7377099, at *2 (D. Minn.
Dec. 20, 2016) (“Further, magistrate judges are afforded wide discretion in handling
CASE 0:23-cv-03514-JRT-SGE Doc. 162 Filed 03/09/26 Page 4 of 14

5
discovery matters and are free to use and control pretrial procedure in furtherance of the
orderly administration of justice.” (cleaned up)).
II. 	Time Period
At the outset, the Court will first address the time period to which Plaintiffs’
discovery requests apply. UHC objects to all of Plaintiffs’ requests to the extent that they
seek any documents before July 1, 2019, arguing that documents before that date are not
discoverable because they are not relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims and production would be
not proportional and unduly burdensome. This Court disagrees. Plaintiffs’ claims allow
discovery into the issues of whether UHC’s policies and procedures changed between pre-
2019 and post-2019, how employees were trained, and what they were told about any
policy or procedural changes involving AI. For example, a United States Senate
investigation report1 from October 2024 confirmed that UHC’s claim denial rate for post-
acute claims more than doubled after they began using naviHealth and nH Predict in 2019,
and Plaintiffs allege these denials lacked proper justification. Documents related to this
investigation are relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims. And information from 2017-2019 is relevant
and could constitute circumstantial evidence as to the breach of contract claims.
UHC also argues that these documents are not relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims because
UHC did not use nH Predict until July 1, 2019. But whether and how UHC changed its
1 U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Refusal of Recovery: How
Medicare Advantage Insurers Have Denied Patients Access to Post-Acute Care, Majority
Staff Report (Oct. 17, 2022), available at https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2024.10.17-PSI-Majority-Staff-Report-on-Medicare-Advantage.pdf (last
visited Feb. 25, 2026) (“Senate Report”).
CASE 0:23-cv-03514-JRT-SGE Doc. 162 Filed 03/09/26 Page 5 of 14

6
practices when it began using nH Predict is directly relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims. The same
is true for any changes UHC undertook with employee incentives, employee discipline,
claims denials, or performance evaluations before and after it began using nH Predict. The
Court will employ this lens while it determines the issues raised by Plaintiffs’ Motion.
III. Plaintiffs’ Requests
A. Policies and Procedures for Post-Acute Care Claims
Plaintiffs seek documents about UHC’s policies and procedures regarding how it
assesses and adjudicates post-acute care claims and employee training (RFP 4), as well as
documents and communications discussing or analyzing nH Predict, including compliance
with generally accepted standards of medical practice (RFP 5). Plaintiffs argue that
individuals from Skilled Nursing Facilities (“SNFs”), Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities
(“IRFs”) and Long-term Acute Care Hospitals (“LTACs”) are custodians of relevant
documents that are responsive to RFPs 4 and 5, and Plaintiffs should be allowed to evaluate
how UHC’s policies and practices changed over the time that UHC began using nH Predict.
UHC argues that it has already produced extensive documents in response to these
RFPs. It also argues that documents about policies and procedures at IRFs or LTACs are
not relevant because naviHealth does not use nH Predict in either IRFs or LTACs. UHC
has provided evidentiary support for its argument. (See Decl. of Allysia Druga, Dkt. 152,
¶ 23 (“naviHealth does not use nH Predict in connection with IRF or LTAC services.”).)
Plaintiffs fail to provide any evidentiary basis to believe that changes in UHC’s policies or
practices at facilities that do not use nH Predict could be relevant to their contract claims.
See Bredemus v. Int’l Paper Co., 252 F.R.D. 529, 535 (D. Minn. 2002) (denying motion to
CASE 0:23-cv-03514-JRT-SGE Doc. 162 Filed 03/09/26 Page 6 of 14

7
compel where movant failed to offer evidentiary basis to counter evidentiary affidavit). The
record before this Court demonstrates that UHC does not use nH Predict at IRFs or LTACs,
and therefore documents concerning UHC’s policies and practices at those facilities are not
relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims.
Accordingly, this Court determines that discovery requests seeking documents
discussing or analyzing UHC’s policies and procedures for assessing and adjudicating post-
acute care claims and employee training or nH Predict at SNFs seek relevant documents
and are neither disproportionate nor overly burdensome to produce. However, Plaintiffs’
request for documents and communications discussing or analyzing compliance with
generally accepted standards of medical practice is overly broad and unduly burdensome,
and requests for documents discussing or analyzing compliance with generally accepted
standards of medical practice will be denied. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion is granted as
it relates to RFP 4, and UHC shall produce responsive documents from January 1, 2017,
through the present. Plaintiffs’ Motion is granted-in-part and denied-in-part as it relates to
RFP 5, and UHC shall produce all documents and communications analyzing or discussing
nH Predict.
B. Development and Use of nH Predict
Plaintiffs next seek to compel responses to RFP 7 and Interrogatory 11, both of
which seek discovery regarding the development and use of nH Predict. RFP 7 seeks
documents related to the development and use of nH Predict, and Interrogatory 11 seeks
the identity of all individuals involved in the development of nH Predict. Plaintiffs argue
that responsive discovery would show how nH Predict works, the development goals of
CASE 0:23-cv-03514-JRT-SGE Doc. 162 Filed 03/09/26 Page 7 of 14

8
nH Predict, its anticipated benefits, and whether nH Predict was designed to supplant
physician decision-making. UHC opposes this request based on relevance, arguing that
RFP 7 is based on a faulty premise regarding the use of nH Predict. UHC further argues
that the data, rules and source code of nH Predict is not relevant to Plaintiffs’ contract
claims.
This Court agrees that Plaintiffs are entitled to discovery of documents regarding
how nH Predict works, its development goals and anticipated benefit, and whether it was
designed to supplant physician decision-making. This includes not only documents and
communications regarding nH Predict’s development, design, creation, approval,
implementation, and use, but also the identities of the individuals involved in nH Predict’s
development, design, creation, implementation, and approval. Indeed, UHC agrees and
either has produced this information or is in the process of producing significant documents
that are responsive to RFP 7. (See Defs.’ Mem. at 25.) UHC’s use of nH Predict is at the
heart of Plaintiffs’ claims, and the identity of individuals that designed, developed, and
implement nH Predict is plainly relevant. However, the Court is not persuaded that the data,
rules, source code, and medical guidelines nH Predict is based on arerelevant to Plaintiffs’
contract claims. Accordingly, with respect to RFP 7, Plaintiffs’ motion is granted-in-part
and denied-in-part, and UHC shall produce documents responsive to RFP 7 except that it
shall not be required to produce the data, rules, source code, and medical guidelines that
nH Predict is based on.
UHC also argues that Interrogatory 11 is based on the “faulty premise” that nH
Predict is used to make coverage determinations. Whether nH Predict is used to make
CASE 0:23-cv-03514-JRT-SGE Doc. 162 Filed 03/09/26 Page 8 of 14

9
coverage determinations, however, is a merits-based argument that the parties can address
later in this litigation. For purposes of this Motion, the identity of the individuals involved
with the development of nH Predict is plainly relevant, and Plaintiff’s motion will be
granted as it relates to Interrogatory 11.
C. Business Acquisition and Financial Data
Plaintiffs also move to compel responses to requests seeking business acquisition
and financial documents about UHC and naviHealth. Specifically, RFP 12 seeks discovery
regarding UHC’s acquisition of naviHealth, and RFP 13 seeks discovery “sufficient to
identify Defendants’ valuation, value, revenue, profits, and profitability.” UHC resists these
RFPs on relevancy and undue-burden grounds. Regarding RFP 12, UHC argues that all
documents and communications connected to its acquisition of naviHealth are not relevant
to whether it breached any of the contracts at issue and its normal business activities of
profit maximization are not actionable to show bad faith. It further argues that its scope of
business exceeds well beyond nH Predict, and Plaintiffs’ claims relating to UHC’s use of
nH Predict have no relationship to substantial portions of its business. Any documents and
communications about UHC’s acquisition of naviHealth to address post-acute care claims
and the projected cost savings for post-acute care claims, though, would be both responsive
to RFP 12 and directly relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims. Accordingly, with respect to RFP 12,
the Court will grant the Motion in part, and UHC shall produce documents and
communications concerning Defendants’ acquisition of naviHealth to address post-acute
care claims or any projected cost-savings for post-acute care claims.
CASE 0:23-cv-03514-JRT-SGE Doc. 162 Filed 03/09/26 Page 9 of 14

10
As for RFP 13, the Court finds UHC’s arguments persuasive. The value, earnings,
and revenue of UHC’s various business entities are not relevant to damages arising from
the contractual breaches at the center of Plaintiffs’ claims. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion
is denied as it relates to RFP 13.
D. Internal and Government Investigations into UHC’s Use of AI
Plaintiffs also move to compel responses to RFPs 14 and 15, both of which seek
documents related to internal or governmental investigations. Broadly, RFP 14 seeks
documents related to internal or governmental investigations into UHC’s use of nH Predict,
algorithms, or AI tools to adjudicate claims, and RFP 15 seeks any and all documents and
communications UHC produced to any governmental body “concerning [its] assessment
and adjudication of medical claims.” UHC opposes both RFPs, arguing that the requests,
as written, are overly broad and unduly burdensome.
Plaintiffs argue that these documents area relevant to show how nH Predict was used
to make medical determinations, whether UHC changed its processes as a result of internal
or governmental investigations, and whether UHC’s adjudication of medical claims has
been investigated by any governmental or regulatory agency. But not every internal or
governmental investigation would necessarily be relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims—certainly
not where UHC’s business is so heavily regulated. And “cloned” discovery requests like
these encompass more documents than are necessarily relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims and
therefore are overly broad and unduly burdensome. See, e.g., Midwest Gas Servs., Inc. v.
Indiana Gas Co., No. IP 99-690-C-D/F, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8098 at *2 (S.D. Ind. Mar.
7, 2000), rev’d in part on other grounds, 317 F.3d 703 (7th Cir. 2003). Governmental
CASE 0:23-cv-03514-JRT-SGE Doc. 162 Filed 03/09/26 Page 10 of 14

11
investigations concerning UHC’s use of nH Predict or other AI tools in post-acute care
claim determinations, however, would certainly be relevant. See, e.g., Senate Report, supra
n.1. Thus, to the extent RFPs 14 and 15 seek documents and communications related to
government investigations into UHC’s use of AI or nH Predict or UHC’s assessments or
adjudications of post-acute care claims, those documents are relevant to the claims and
should be produced.
Accordingly, with respect to RFPs 14 and 15, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ Motion in
part, and UHC shall produce documents and communications concerning governmental
agency or regulatory body investigations related to UHC’s use of nH Predict or AI tools
used in relation to the assessment and adjudication of post-acute care claims. Insofar as
RFPs 14 and 15 seek internal investigations of UHC’s policies or practices or operations
related to UHC’s use of other algorithms or AI tools, however, the Court denies Plaintiffs’
Motion.
E. naviHealth Employee Incentives for Using nH Predict
Plaintiffs’ RFPs 16 and 17 seek documents related to performance evaluations,
compensation, and discipline of naviHealth employees. In addition to the time-period
objections addressed above, UHC argues that these RFPs are overly broad because they
encompass naviHealth employees that are not relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims. In response to
RFP 16, UHC produced documents relating to medical directors involved in SNF claims,
and Plaintiffs argue that this limitation excludes too many relevant documents, including
metrics that applied to employees who primarily interface with patients and other post-
acute care personnel. As to RFP 17, UHC objects on relevance and privilege grounds, and
CASE 0:23-cv-03514-JRT-SGE Doc. 162 Filed 03/09/26 Page 11 of 14

12
argues that disclosing employees’ disciplinary records requires a compelling showing of
relevancy that Plaintiffs have not made. UHC further argues that the request is overly broad
and disproportional because it seeks “any” disciplinary actions against naviHealth
employees.
The Court agrees with UHC that Plaintiffs have not made a sufficient showing to
require the production of all naviHealth employee disciplinary records. See, e.g., Onwuka
v. Federal Express Corp., 178 F.R.D. 508, 516-17 (D. Minn. 1997) (personnel files of entire
class of employees should not be disclosed absent a compelling showing of relevance).
Nonetheless, the documents related to post-acute care coordinators are directly relevant to
Plaintiffs’ claims. Accordingly, as to RFPs 16 and 17, the Court grants-in-part Plaintiffs’
motion, and UHC shall produce documents responsive to RFPs 16 and 17 dating back to
November 2017 for all post-acute care coordinators, including medical directors, who
make post-acute care recommendations.
F. Oversight of AI Use by UHC
Plaintiffs also seek documents related to UHC’s AI Review Board and the identities
of the Board’s members. Specifically, RFP 19 seeks documents and communications
“concerning the review, oversight, and analysis of nH Predict” by UHC’s internal AI
Review Board, and Interrogatory 12 asks for the identities of the members of UHC’s AI
Review Board. UHC argues that these requests seek discovery that is irrelevant to Plaintiffs'
breach of contract claims. This Court disagrees. Documents and communications about
UHC’s review and oversight of nH Predict are directly relevant to its alleged conduct, as
CASE 0:23-cv-03514-JRT-SGE Doc. 162 Filed 03/09/26 Page 12 of 14

13
is the identity of the individuals who conduct that review and oversight. Plaintiffs’ Motion
is granted as to RFP 19 and Interrogatory 12.
G. Employees Issuance of NOMNCs
Finally, UHC objects to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories 3 and 4. Interrogatory 3 seeks the
identities of all employees involved in decisions to issue NOMNCs, and Interrogatory 4
seeks the identities of all employees responsible for training naviHealth Medical Directors
and care coordinators. UHC argues that it has already produced the identities of the Medical
Directors who reviewed the Named Plaintiffs’ claims as well as nine individuals that UHC
has identified as being involved in training naviHealth Medical Directors and care
coordinators from July 1, 2019, to present. UHC further argues that requiring it to identify
all Medical Directors and care coordinators would impose a disproportionate burden
because that would encompass thousands of current and former employees.
UHC’s limited response identifying only individuals who issued NOMNCs in the
Named Plaintiffs’ cases is insufficient. Plaintiffs are entitled to discovery on both the
Named Plaintiffs’ claims and the putative class members’ claims (see Dkt. 130), and UHC
identifying only the Medical Directors who reviewed the Named Plaintiffs’ claims directly
conflicts with this Court’s earlier order denying UHC’s motion to bifurcate discovery.
However, this Court is also cognizant of UHC’s representation that the number of
employees involved in the decision to issue NOMNCs—both Medical Directors and care
coordinators—for the putative class is in the thousands.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion will be granted with respect to Interrogatories 3 and
4 as follows: For Interrogatory 3, UHC shall produce the names, phone numbers, and last-
CASE 0:23-cv-03514-JRT-SGE Doc. 162 Filed 03/09/26 Page 13 of 14

14
known addresses of medical directors and care coordinators who were involved in deciding
to issue NOMNCs for 300 members of the putative nationwide class. For Interrogatory 4,
UHC shall identify all employees responsible for training Medical Directors and care
coordinators in the use of nH Predict.
ORDER
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings
herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Dkt. 143) is
GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART as set forth above. To facilitate the just,
speedy, and inexpensive resolution of this matter, UHC shall produce all documents
required by this Order within 21 days of this Order’s issuance.
Dated: March 9, 2026 	s/Shannon G. Elkins
SHANNON G. ELKINS
United States Magistrate Judge
CASE 0:23-cv-03514-JRT-SGE Doc. 162 Filed 03/09/26 Page 14 of 14