Health care data company Veeva Systems should be found in default of a competitor's lawsuit over theft of trade secrets because it allegedly destroyed evidence central to the claims against it, according to a motion filed by a competitor in federal court in Newark.

Among the evidence that Veeva allegedly destroyed was some a special master ordered it to produce, according to a motion filed Tuesday by plaintiff IQVIA. Veeva also allegedly lied about its conduct in order to avoid detection by the court and IQVIA, according to the motion.

"Veeva's systematic destruction of evidence has irreparably harmed IQVIA's ability to demonstrate the extent of Veeva's trade secret misappropriation," IQVIA's lawyers from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan said in the motion. IQVIA seeks a default judgment against Veeva, or in the alternative, imposition of a curative instruction on the jury concerning the missing data. IQVIA also said Veeva's alleged destruction of evidence should dictate dismissal of its counterclaims for antitrust violations.

The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Claire Cecchi.

Although IQVIA claims it can prove that Veeva misappropriated its data, Veeva's alleged spoliation have deprived IQVIA of proving the extent of the misappropriation, according to the motion.

IQVIA claims Veeva admitted it destroyed a key database in the summer of 2018, some 18 months after the suit was filed, according to the motion. Veeva destroyed the database three months after the special master in the case, former U.S. District Judge Dennis Cavanaugh, ordered it to produce certain evidence, the motion said.

IQVIA also claims Veeva admitted it deleted virtually all emails from January 2014 to May 2015 to and from a key witness, the motion says. That person's name and many other details in the case are redacted from the public version of the motion.

In addition, after Veeva allegedly failed to produce certain highly probative documents that were stored in Google Drive, and a special master granted IQVIA's motion to compel production, Veeva allegedly gave conflicting statements about when it began to preserve documents related to the suit, according to the motion. IQVIA now accuses Veeva of refusing to explain the discrepancies about its efforts to preserve documents, IQVIA's motion said.

A default judgment should be entered because Veeva's degree of fault is high, because IQVIA has suffered substantial prejudice as a result of Veeva's alleged spoliation, and only a default judgment is sufficient to remedy the prejudice to IQVIA, the motion said.

IQVIA and Veeva are both purveyors of data related to the health care industry. The suit, filed in January 2017, claims California-based Veeva used data belonging to IQVIA under more than 50 licensing agreements. But in other cases, agreements for sharing data could not be reached because Veeva was not able to assure IQVIA that its information would be safe from abuse, the suit claims. IQVIA, formerly known as Quintiles IMS, said Veeva wrongfully misappropriated its proprietary data and made misrepresentations to clients about the validity of IQVIA's data theft claims. the suit says.

Veeva has denied the suit's claims of theft of trade secrets, and it brought counterclaims accusing IQVIA of abusing its position as the dominant provider of data products for life sciences companies by preventing Veeva from providing its data products and software applications to those companies.

"IQVIA is an entrenched monopolist. Its motion is completely baseless," said Josh Faddis, senior vice president and general counsel for Veeva, in a statement. "It is an attempt to keep the merits of this case from being heard so that IQVIA can continue its abusive exclusionary conduct that harms the life sciences industry and ultimately harms patients. Veeva is committed to seeing this case through to resolution and ending IQVIA's long track record of monopoly abuse."

Veeva's lawyers from Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati and Saiber did not respond to requests for comment about the spoliation motion. IQVIA's lawyers from Quinn Emanuel and Critchley, Kinum & Denoia declined to comment on the case.