Federal court narrows privilege fight in McKesson False Claims Act case

A federal judge in New York has ruled on discovery in a long-running False Claims Act case against McKesson, potentially opening access to communications involving company lawyers. The decision could matter because the case accuses McKesson of repackaging and misbranding oncology drugs and submitting false claims to federal health programs.

Why it matters: - The ruling could broaden discovery in a decade-old False Claims Act case and expose communications McKesson had expected to keep privileged. - The lawsuit targets conduct tied to oncology drugs and federal healthcare billing, raising patient-safety and reimbursement issues. - The case is now fully briefed for summary judgment, so the discovery ruling may shape the record the court reviews next.

What happened: - A federal court issued a discovery ruling in United States of America, et al., ex rel. Omni Healthcare Inc. v. McKesson Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-06440-NG-ST, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. - The ruling addresses whether discovery may extend to communications involving McKesson's in-house and outside legal counsel. - The litigation was filed under the False Claims Act in 2012. - The relator has continued the case for more than a decade after the federal government declined to intervene.

The details: - Court filings say the lawsuit alleges McKesson harvested overfill from oncology medications, repackaged and adulterated medications, and misbranded products under allegedly non-sterile conditions. - The complaint also alleges McKesson submitted false claims to federal healthcare programs. - Court records say the judge's ruling followed arguments that McKesson put its legal advice and good-faith beliefs at issue in the case. - That finding could allow discovery into communications previously protected by attorney-client privilege. - The complaint further alleges McKesson continued certain practices after warnings from manufacturers. - The lawsuit also alleges McKesson misrepresented aspects of its operations to federal investigators and distributed repackaged FDA-approved medications. - The relator claims those practices posed risks to immunocompromised cancer patients. - McKesson has not been found liable in the case and disputes the allegations. - Court filings note that a separate federal matter involving AmerisourceBergen led to a guilty plea to criminal violations tied to a pre-filled syringe program and an agreement to pay about $885 million in criminal and civil penalties. - The current lawsuit alleges McKesson engaged in comparable conduct.

Between the lines: - The privilege ruling suggests the court sees McKesson's state of mind and legal advice as central issues, not just background context. - If discovery expands, relators may gain more internal evidence to support claims about intent, knowledge and alleged misrepresentations. - The AmerisourceBergen reference signals the relator is using a related corporate case to frame the alleged seriousness of McKesson's conduct.

What's next: - The case will move forward with summary judgment briefing already complete. - The court may rule next on the merits of the False Claims Act claims, unless further discovery or procedural motions change the schedule. - Any later ruling could determine whether the case proceeds toward trial or ends at the summary judgment stage. - Social links from the source: LinkedIn and Facebook.