In Re: GoodRx and Pharmacy Benefit Manager Antitrust Litigation (No. II)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
IN RE: GOODRX AND PHARMACY
BENEFIT MANAGER ANTITRUST
LITIGATION (No. II)
This Document Applies To: ALL CASES
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C.A. No. 1:25-md-03148-MSM-AEM
MDL No. 3148
ORDER
Now pending before the Court are the parties’ briefs in support of their proposed Protective
Orders and ESI Protocols. ECF Nos. 100, 101. The parties jointly reached agreement on most
topics and sought Court intervention on the remaining issues. The matter was referred to me for
determination and order. 	Text Order (Jan. 6, 2026); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). 	The Court
heard argument on January 8, 2026. At the hearing, the parties agreed to further confer and submit
a joint statement regarding two issues: the timeframe to object to custodians and search terms (ESI
Protocol Section II.C.); and the timeframe to object to the assertion of privilege in a privilege log
(ESI Protocol Section IV.B.). The parties filed their Joint Status Report on January 16, 2026. ECF
No. 111. Having reviewed the parties’ filings, heard oral argument, and conducted independent
research, the Court resolves the issues as follows:
I. 	PROTECTIVE ORDER
A. Section 2.f. - Authenticity Waiver for Certain Documents
The parties’ disagreement as to Section 2.f. of the Protective Order centers on whether
documents marked “confidential” or “highly confidential” should be automatically deemed
authentic. ECF No. 100-1 at 37; ECF No. 101-2 at 6. Plaintiffs contend that if a document contains
Case 1:25-md-03148-MSM-AEM Document 115 Filed 01/27/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
such confidential information, then it’s a “logical corollary” that the document is authentic. ECF
No. 101 at 4. Defendants argue that authenticity and confidentiality are distinct concepts, and that
any authenticity determinations are premature at this stage of the litigation. ECF No. 100 at 5-6.
The Court agrees with Defendants that confidentiality and authenticity are distinct. 	The Court
therefore DENIES Plaintiffs’ request to include the proposed language concerning authenticity.
B. Section 9.a.ii. – Redactions Based on Relevance
As to Section 9.a.ii., Defendants seek the ability to redact information that is “neither
relevant nor responsive,” but disclosure of which “would risk substantial competitive or other
harm.” ECF No. 100 at 8. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that universal relevance redactions are
“unworkable” and not provided for under the Federal Rules. ECF No. 101 at 2. As such, the Court
DENIES Defendants’ request to include this language. 1
II. 	ESI PROTOCOL
A. Sections II.B., II.C., and IV.A.4. – Transparency and Cooperation v.
Discovery on Discovery
What Plaintiffs consider “Transparency and Cooperation,” Defendants deem “Rigid
Requirements for Production of Discovery on Discovery.” ECF No. 101 at 5-8; ECF No. 100 at
6-7. The Court considered the parties arguments and competing proposals for language in Sections
II.B., Sources of Discoverable Information, and II.C., Filtering Technologies and Methodologies.
1 The Court notes that Defendants seek to include the word “relevance” in Section IV.B.7. of the
ESI Protocol (ECF No. 100-2 at 42) but did not find arguments from either party on this point.
The Court does not see any utility in having “relevance” in this section, so Defendants’ request for
the addition of the word is DENIED.
Case 1:25-md-03148-MSM-AEM Document 115 Filed 01/27/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
ECF No. 100 at 6-7; ECF No. 100-2 at 26-28; ECF No. 101-4 at 2-5. The revised sections II.B.
and II.C. below reflect the Court’s decisions on these matters:
II.B. 	Sources of Discoverable Information.
In order to facilitate discussions on the potential application of
search terms, TAR, or other search and culling technologies, each Party
shall work cooperatively and in good faith to provide in writing a list of
custodians and non-custodial data sources within that Party’s control likely
to contain or possess responsive documents. If requested, each Party shall
provide this information within forty-five (45) days of receipt of a discovery
request from an opposing Party, though this deadline may be extended by
agreement of the Parties, and reasonable requests for extensions of time
shall not be refused.
Notwithstanding the foregoing language, the Parties shall begin
discussions on potential search and culling technologies through the meet
and confer process prior to providing any written list. Parties shall also meet
and confer if any Party reasonably believes that there are additional
custodians or data sources likely to contain or possess unique, responsive
information that should be subject to discovery in this matter.
II.C. 	Filtering Technologies and Methodologies
The Parties agree that each Producing Party will take reasonable
steps to identify, review, and produce relevant Documents. If a Producing
Party 	elects 	to 	use 	search 	terms 	to 	identify 	potentially 	responsive
Documents, 	it 	shall 	identify 	to 	the 	Party 	requesting 	production 	of
Documents (“Requesting Party”) an initial list of search terms and
custodians that are likely to possess responsive Documents. 	If the
Requesting Party would like to amend or add any terms or custodians, the
Requesting Party must provide those suggestions within fifty (50) days of
receiving the list from the Producing Party. 	After the suggested changes
have been provided, the Parties will meet and confer regarding those
requested changes proposed by the Requesting Party. The Producing Party
will also provide an exchange of information that includes, where relevant:
semantic synonyms, code words, acronyms, abbreviations, nonlanguage
alphanumeric associational references to relevant ESI, any hit count reports,
data dictionaries, and any other information agreed to by the Parties.
Following the receipt of such any such list, the Parties will meet and confer.
To the extent the Parties cannot reach agreement on the application of, or
Case 1:25-md-03148-MSM-AEM Document 115 Filed 01/27/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
procedures for, any search or filtering processes, the Parties may raise such
issues for resolution by the Court or its designee.
In addition, to the extent a Party intends to apply TAR to exclude
potentially responsive documents from human review, that Party shall meet
and confer in advance of when the Party intends to apply TAR. That meet
and confer shall include a discussion of the document population to which
the Producing Party intends to apply TAR, the appropriateness of applying
TAR to that population, and the methods and measures that will be used to
ensure appropriate use of TAR and validation of its results. To the extent
the Parties cannot reach agreement on the application of, or procedures for,
any TAR process used to exclude potentially responsive documents from
human review, the Parties may raise such issues for resolution by the Court.
If there are documents which are reasonably believed to be
responsive and for which text-based search technologies are fundamentally
ineffective, such as images, spreadsheets, or hard copy documents, then
prior to the production of such unsearchable items the Parties shall meet and
confer regarding how such documents must be reviewed and produced. To
the extent the Parties cannot reach agreement on how such documents shall
be reviewed and produced, the Parties may raise such issues for resolution
by the Court.
As to Section IV.A.4., the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request and their proposed language
shall be added to the ESI Protocol.
B. Section II.C. – Sedona Principle 6
Defendants advocate for the inclusion of specific language that they deem a “central pillar
of modern e-discovery” in the ESI Protocol. 	ECF No. 100 at 11-12. 	The Court agrees with
Plaintiffs that such language is unnecessary and DENIES Defendants’ request to include the
proposed language.
C. Section II.C. – Time Limit on Objections to Custodians and Search Terms
The parties initially disagreed on a time limit for objections to custodians and search terms,
but after hearing reached agreement that fifty (50) days was an appropriate time limit. The Court
included this time limit in the Section II.C. language above.
Case 1:25-md-03148-MSM-AEM Document 115 Filed 01/27/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
D. Section III.B. – Email Threading
Defendants contend that “producing emails as threads” is a routine practice that should be
permitted in this litigation. ECF No. 100 at 9-10. Plaintiffs posit that this would “deprive [them]
of important metadata needed to effectively search produced documents.” 	ECF No. 101 at 8.
Because the Court finds Plaintiffs’ argument persuasive, Plaintiffs’ proposed language shall be
included in the ESI Protocol and Defendants’ will not.
E. Section IV.B.5. – Redactions Based on Relevance
The parties’ arguments regarding redactions on relevancy grounds are the same for both
the Protective Order and the ESI Protocol. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ request
to include the proposed language.
F. 	Section IV.B. – Log for Redacted Privileged Documents
In Section IV.B., the parties’ disagreement is twofold: 	whether Defendants should be
required to create a privilege log for redacted documents; and the timeframe within which to object
to the assertion of privilege. First, with respect to the creation of a privilege log, Defendants seeks
the addition of language (Section IV.B.6.) that would exclude from the privilege log documents
redacted for privilege. 	ECF No. 100-2 at 42. 	Defendants contend that the redacted documents
themselves contain sufficient information to discern the privilege asserted. ECF No. 100 at 11.
Plaintiffs oppose the exclusion of such documents from the privilege log, arguing that “Defendants
should be required to log all documents withheld or redacted on the basis of privilege in a privilege
log in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26.” ECF No. 101 at 11. The Court finds
Case 1:25-md-03148-MSM-AEM Document 115 Filed 01/27/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
that documents withheld both in their entirety and in part must be included in the privilege log.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ request to include their proposed paragraph IV.B.6.
Second, the parties have agreed that the deadline to challenge the assertion of privilege will
be 100 (one hundred) days after the production of the privilege log and the parties will “meet and
confer concerning any extensions to that deadline where either the timing, number, and/or volume
of such log productions establish that additional time is warranted.” ECF No. 111 at 1. The ESI
Protocol shall be modified accordingly.
The parties shall work cooperatively over the next week to revise the Protective Order and
ESI Protocol to comply with this Order. The parties shall both file a final Protective Order and
final ESI Protocol on the docket and email word versions to Deputy Clerk Jeannine Noel
(Jeannine_Noel@rid.uscourts.gov) no later than February 4, 2026.
/s/ 	Amy E. Moses
AMY E. MOSES
United States Magistrate Judge
January 27, 2026
Case 1:25-md-03148-MSM-AEM Document 115 Filed 01/27/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>