Patterson v. Swagelok Co. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
LAURA L. PATTERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
SWAGELOK COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 1:20-cv-566
Judge J. Philip Calabrese
Magistrate Judge
Jonathan D. Greenberg
ERIC L. PATTERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC.,
et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 1:21-cv-470
Judge J. Philip Calabrese
OPINION AND ORDER
On July 27, 2026, the Court resolved the parties’ long-running discovery
dispute regarding the discoverability of any similarly situated insureds to the
Pattersons. (Laura Patterson ECF No. 99; Eric Patterson ECF No. 118.) In resolving
this dispute, the Court outlined its history, which began in 2023 but did not become
ripe until July 2026. 	(See Laura Patterson ECF No. 99, PageID #3272–76; Eric
Patterson ECF No. 118, PageID #3882–86.) 	After reviewing the record, the Court
determined that the first amended complaint (the operative complaint at the time)
put at issue the existence of similarly situated insureds. 	Therefore, the Court
Case: 1:20-cv-00566-JPC Doc #: 109 Filed: 08/24/26 1 of 10. PageID #: <pageID>

2
determined that the Pattersons were entitled to discover such information and
ordered Defendants to produce the information. Defendants seek reconsideration of
this decision. (Laura Patterson ECF No. 104; Eric Patterson ECF No. 123.)
At a status conference on August 19, 2026, the Court addressed certain
discovery issues that Plaintiffs raised with respect to Kreiner & Peters. 	(Laura
Patterson ECF No. 105; Eric Patterson ECF No. 124.) Specifically, Kreiner & Peters
objected 	to 	the 	production 	of 	certain 	communications 	during 	the 	State-court
litigation. (Id.) At the status conference, Kreiner & Peters reported that it asked its
clients’ position on the issue and was awaiting a response. To avoid the circumstance
where the parties delayed discovery for months awaiting an answer, the Court set a
deadline of Friday, August 20. 	In doing so, the Court stated that, in light of its
Opinion and Order dated July 31, 2026 (Laura Patterson ECF No. 101; Eric Patterson
ECF No. 120), the parties could not in good faith draw the line at the assertion of
privilege based on the pendency of litigation. Instead, the applicable line is whether
the communication at issue involves plan administration. For this reason, the Court
alternatively provided that if Kreiner & Peters wished to stand on its objection that
it should submit the materials at issue for in camera review. Kreiner & Peters stands
on its objections. (Laura Patterson ECF No. 106; Eric Patterson ECF No. 125), but it
did not produce the materials at issue for in camera review. 	Instead, it seeks
reconsideration.
Although the rules do not formally provide for reconsideration, the reasons for
altering or amending a judgment under Rule 59 or for obtaining relief from a
Case: 1:20-cv-00566-JPC Doc #: 109 Filed: 08/24/26 2 of 10. PageID #: <pageID>

3
judgment under Rule 60 generally delineate the circumstances under which a court
will grant reconsideration. 	This is so despite the fact that, strictly speaking, “any
order or other decision . . . that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and
liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action . . . and may be
revisited at any time before the entry of judgment[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
A court may alter or amend the judgment where there is a clear error of law,
newly discovered evidence, or an intervening change in controlling law or to prevent
manifest injustice. GenCorp, Inc. v. American Int’l Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834
(6th Cir. 1999) (citations omitted). 	Such relief constitutes an extraordinary remedy
reserved for exceptional cases. 	Hines v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec., 414 F. Supp. 3d
1080, 1081 (S.D. Ohio 2019) (citations omitted). It is not an opportunity to re-argue
matters or “to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before
judgment issued.” 	Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146 F.3d
367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998) (quoting Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. World Univ. Inc., 978
F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir. 1992)). And a district court retains discretion to entertain such
a motion. Rodriguez v. Tennessee Laborers Health & Welfare Fund, 89 F. App’x 949,
959 n.7 (6th Cir. 2004).
I. 	Order Dated July 27, 2026
Against this high standard, Defendants Swagelok Company, UnitedHealth
Group Incorporated, United Healthcare Services, Inc., United HealthCare Insurance
Company, and OptumInsight, Inc. seek reconsideration primarily on two grounds.
Specifically, they argue for reconsideration based on the Court’s “oversight and
mistake” of (1) not addressing the Pattersons’ standing in ruling on the discovery
Case: 1:20-cv-00566-JPC Doc #: 109 Filed: 08/24/26 3 of 10. PageID #: <pageID>

4
issue and (2) allowing discovery of similarly situated insureds based on allegedly
conclusory assertions that lack a factual basis. 	(Laura Patterson ECF No. 104,
PageID #3310 n.2; Eric Patterson ECF No. 123, PageID #3920 n.2.) 	The Court
addresses each in turn.
I.A. 	Standing
Defendants argue that reconsideration is warranted because, in ruling on the
discovery dispute, the Court did not address whether Mr. and Mrs. Patterson have
standing to pursue claims on behalf of others, namely a class. Previously, the Court
addressed this issue in its Opinion and Order dated January 9, 2026. 	(Laura
Patterson 	ECF 	No. 	72, 	PageID #1776–90; 	Eric 	Patterson 	ECF 	No. 	91,
PageID #2386–400.) 	In that ruling, the Court addressed the issue of standing at
great length—spending almost 14 pages separately analyzing whether Eric and
Laura Patterson each had standing to pursue their claims. (Id.) In short, there is no
dispute 	that 	each 	Plaintiff 	alleges 	a 	concrete 	and 	particularized 	injury 	fairly
traceable to Defendants and redressable by the Court.
In its ruling on January 9, 2026, the Court went further and addressed
whether the Sixth Circuit’s ruling in Patterson v. United Healthcare Ins. Co.
(Patterson I), 76 F.4th 487, 494 (6th Cir. 2023), precluded Eric Patterson from
maintaining a class action. 	Following careful analysis of the record and the Sixth
Circuit’s ruling, the Court determined that different factual allegations might permit
him to bring class allegations, subject to the requirements of Rule 23. 	(Laura
Patterson 	ECF 	No. 	72, 	PageID 	#1788–89; 	Eric 	Patterson 	ECF 	No. 	91,
PageID #2398–99.)
Case: 1:20-cv-00566-JPC Doc #: 109 Filed: 08/24/26 4 of 10. PageID #: <pageID>

5
Additionally, 	Defendants 	argue 	that 	the 	Court 	previously 	dismissed
Mr. Patterson’s claims on behalf of a class “on the merits.” 	(Laura Patterson ECF
No. 104, PageID #3310 n.4; Eric Patterson ECF No. 123, PageID #3920 n.4.) That is
not true. 	At the beginning of Mr. Patterson’s case, and before the Sixth Circuit’s
decision in Patterson I, Mr. Patterson moved for leave to amend to add class
allegations. (Eric Patterson, ECF No. 35.) The Court denied that amendment request
based on futility—the amendment removed substantive allegations, which the Court
determined failed to state a claim. 	(Eric Patterson ECF No. 39, PageID #1100–01.)
Accordingly, once the Court dismissed the entire case, there was no need for
consideration of Mr. Patterson’s class allegations.
Finally, Defendant rely on Vasser v. FCA, US LLC, et al, 2:25-cv-12529 (E.D.
Mich., Aug. 17, 2026), to argue that the Court incorrectly applied this Circuit’s law
on standing. (Laura Patterson ECF No. 104, PageID #3310 n.3; Eric Patterson,ECF
No. 123, PageID #3920 n.3.) That reliance is misplaced. Obviously, one district court
cannot bind another, so the decision does not constitute an intervening change in the
law that merits reconsideration. But even a cursory review shows that the standing
analysis in Vasser has no application on the facts at issue here.
In short, the Court did not address standing—again—in resolving a discovery
dispute because it did not have to do so. 	Previously, it expended considerable time
and effort on the issue, and no party raised the issue when presenting the discovery
dispute to the Court for resolution. At bottom, Defendants’ motion for reconsideration
belatedly 	seeks 	to 	reopen 	the 	Court’s 	ruling 	on 	the 	motion 	to 	dismiss 	dated
Case: 1:20-cv-00566-JPC Doc #: 109 Filed: 08/24/26 5 of 10. PageID #: <pageID>

6
January 9, 2026. In that respect, the motion simply comes too late and, in any event,
lacks merit.
I.B. 	Well-Pleaded Allegations
Defendants argue that the allegations in the first amended complaint do not
justify the requested third-party discovery of similarly situated insureds because they
are conclusory. 	This argument is not well-taken. 	The first amended complaint
directly alleges that there are others similarly situated to the Pattersons. (See Laura
Patterson 	ECF 	No. 	99, 	PageID 	#3276–77; 	Eric 	Patterson 	ECF 	No. 	118,
PageID #3886–87.) 	Contrary to Defendants’ reading, these allegations satisfy the
requirements of Rule 8. Whether Plaintiffs can satisfy the requirements of Rule 23,
including by showing that each class member has standing, remains to be seen
through the development of facts through discovery. 	Because the Pattersons
plausibly allege that there are other similarly situated insureds, Plaintiffs are
entitled to that discovery.
Defendants point to the depositions of Mr. and Mrs. Patterson to demonstrate
that there are not other similarly situated insureds. 	(See Laura Patterson ECF
No. 104, PageID #3311; Eric Patterson ECF No. 123, PageID #3921.) 	But their
counsel made the allegations and might through investigation and other means have
such information. 	Indeed, counsel has access to information that their clients
necessarily would not because of their work on these cases, including through
investigations or discovery. Accordingly, the Pattersons’ answers at deposition do not
mean that their answers were false or that the allegations in the first amended
Case: 1:20-cv-00566-JPC Doc #: 109 Filed: 08/24/26 6 of 10. PageID #: <pageID>

7
complaint are untrue. In any event, Mr. and Mrs. Patterson might well identify the
other as similarly situated.
I.C. 	Development of the Record for Reconsideration
In their motion for reconsideration, Defendants raise one other issue that
requires a brief mention. 	They complain that they are constrained to two pages of
briefing for their motion for reconsideration and “full briefing on this critical issue”
should be allowed by the Court. 	(Laura Patterson ECF No. 104, PageID #3310 n.2;
Eric Patterson ECF No. 123, PageID #3920 n.2.) 	They go so far as to claim that “it
was acknowledged that no written briefing had been submitted directly addressing
the discoverability of such information.” 	(Laura Patterson ECF No. 104, PageID
#3310; Eric Patterson ECF No. 123, PageID #3920.) This claim has no merit. At that
status conference, Defendants confirmed that they stood on their prior objection to
the discoverability of similarly situated persons, which was already part of the record
in the form of a lengthy written objection. (See Eric Patterson ECF No. 62–1, PageID
#1557–59.) 	Indeed, those written objections adequately explained Defendants’
position. 	(Id.) 	Additionally, Defendants repeatedly articulated their positions and
presented their arguments on the issue at several status conferences. 	(See Laura
Patterson ECF No. 99, PageID #3272–76; Eric Patterson ECF No. 118, PageID
#3882–86.) Therefore, in the Court’s view, the record was adequately developed, and
more briefing was not warranted before resolution of the discovery dispute.
Moreover, Defendants misunderstand the Court’s Civil Standing Order. 	As
that Order (which can be found here) explains, motions for reconsideration are
disfavored in the law and, as a result, carry a high standard. Limiting the length of
Case: 1:20-cv-00566-JPC Doc #: 109 Filed: 08/24/26 7 of 10. PageID #: <pageID>

8
an initial motion serves a screening function to determine whether a litigant can meet
that high standard. 	Indeed, where warranted, the Court allows for more complete
briefing. But this is not such a case.
II. 	Order Dated August 19, 2026
As a procedural matter, the Court ordered Kreiner & Peters to produce the
materials over which it claims privilege for in camera review on August 24, 2026. It
did not do so. 	A motion for reconsideration does not stay a court order. 	Kreiner &
Peters could have sought reconsideration after deciding to stand on its claim of
privilege. Instead, it engaged in self-help and defied a court order.
The Court remains doubtful that a claim of privilege may be asserted as a
categorical matter in good faith over the communications during the State-court
litigation at issue for the reasons stated at the hearing on August 18, 2026 and above.
In its motion for reconsideration, however, Kreiner & Peters remains adamant that
it had nothing to do with plan administration. 	Also, it appears concerned that its
communications with entities not formally its client might not be protected by the
claims of privilege it makes. Conceivably, the entities on the defense side in the State-
court litigation share a common-interest privilege, but no party has thus far in this
litigation made such a claim. And it is too late to do so now. Indeed, Kreiner & Peters
did not assert such a protection as a basis for any of its objections.
Because Kreiner & Peters remains adamant in its claim of privilege, the Court
ORDERS it to provide the materials at issue forthwith to the Magistrate Judge in
Case No. 1:21-cv-470. 	By separate order, the Court will refer review of these
materials to the Magistrate Judge.
Case: 1:20-cv-00566-JPC Doc #: 109 Filed: 08/24/26 8 of 10. PageID #: <pageID>

9
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Court sees no clear error of law or manifest injustice in
either Order at issue. Nor has there been an intervening change in the law or newly
discovered 	evidence. 	Therefore, 	the 	Court 	DENIES 	Defendants’ 	motion 	for
reconsideration (Laura Patterson ECF No. 104; Eric Patterson ECF No. 123) and the
motion of Kreiner & Peters (Laura Patterson ECF No. 105; Eric Patterson ECF
No. 124) and ORDERS Kreiner & Peters to submit the materials over which it claims
privilege for in camera review forthwith to the Magistrate Judge in Case No. 1:21-cv-
470.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and N.D. Ohio Local Rule 72.2(a), the Court
refers this matter to the Magistrate Judge in Case No. 1:21-cv-470 for in camera
review of the materials submitted according to the parameters set forth in its Opinion
and Order dated July 31, 2026 (Laura Patterson ECF No. 101; Eric Patterson ECF
No. 120) and production, as appropriate, to Plaintiffs on the schedule set for class
certification (see Laura Patterson ECF No. 99, PageID #3277; Eric Patterson ECF
No. 118, PageID #3887).
Further, the Court schedules the next status conference for September 17,
2026 at 2:00 pm by Zoom. By September 14, 2026 at noon, the parties shall submit a
joint status report, identifying any issues that require the Court’s attention. If there
are no such issues, the Court will cancel the conference.
SO ORDERED.
Case: 1:20-cv-00566-JPC Doc #: 109 Filed: 08/24/26 9 of 10. PageID #: <pageID>

10
Dated: August 24, 2026
J. Philip Calabrese
United States District Judge
Northern District of Ohio
Case: 1:20-cv-00566-JPC Doc #: 109 Filed: 08/24/26 10 of 10. PageID #: <pageID>