Fierce Court Fight Pits Health Care Giant Against a Former Top Executive
A team from McDermott Will & Emery is defending a former Optum health executive who jumped to the new Amazon-JPMorgan-Berkshire initiative. Optum's suing the former exec for alleged breach of contract.
February 07, 2019 at 06:02 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
An increasingly fierce court fight unfolding in Boston between a major health care company and a former senior executive who jumped to a new venture highlights the pressure established players feel when rivals show up and threaten to disrupt an industry.
The UnitedHealth Group Inc. subsidiary Optum sued last month to stop its former director of product strategy, David Smith, from working at the upstart venture involving Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway and JPMorgan Chase that promised to “address health care for their U.S. employees, with the aim of improving employee satisfaction and reducing costs.”
Optum's lawyers at Boston-based firm Beck Reed Riden contend the company faces “irreparable harm” if Smith is allowed to join the new—and still nameless—health care company. Lawyers for Optum argue that Smith is violating various nondisclosure and noncompete restrictions and should be barred from “sharing his insider knowledge of Optum's most valuable and competitively sensitive trade secrets.”
The case is attracting widespread attention as industry titans such as UnitedHealth and other competitors try to discern the full scope of the Amazon initiative. The new venture has been on a hiring spree for months, luring top executives from the insurance and tech fields.
Smith, represented by a team from Boston's Bello Welsh LLP and McDermott Will & Emery, lost an early effort to immediately push the case to arbitration before any restraining order could be issued. His lawyers this week went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to argue that Optum's employment contract dispute doesn't belong in court.
Optum on Thursday lawyered up for the appeal. Two appellate veterans—Thomas Goldstein and Sarah Harrington of the Washington boutique Goldstein & Russell—filed notices that they were representing the company.
➤➤ Get employment law news and commentary straight to your in-box with Labor of Law, a new Law.com briefing. Learn more and sign up here.
As the appeal gets underway, Optum's trial lawyers filed new papers seeking an injunction that would restrict Smith from working at the Amazon-JPMorgan-Berkshire venture, referred to in court papers as “ABC.”
“Because the stakes are high and the risk of irreparable harm grows with each passing day, Optum is using every available tool to expeditiously obtain interim relief that will preserve the ability of an arbitrator to grant meaningful relief should it determine that Optum's claims are meritorious,” Russell Beck, a lawyer for Optum, said in the new filing. “Prompt resolution of Optum's pending motion is both necessary and warranted.”
Lawyers for both sides did not immediately return calls seeking comment. U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf of the District of Massachusetts is presiding over the case.
Optum's lawsuit said Smith cannot perform his new job without giving away Optum's information and should be barred from working at the company. The complaint also accuses him of intentionally taking information in his previous position when he knew he would be resigning.
Smith's role at Optum involved working on strategy, including preparing for future opportunities in the health care field, the company said in the complaint.
Optum contends that Smith was regularly exposed to Optum's trade secrets and other confidential information. The covenant he signed also agreed not to work for a competitor for at least 36 months after employment. The agreement also said he would not recruit or solicit Optum's workers for two years.
“While the full scope of ABC's ultimate activities is still unknown, the expectation is that the venture aims to disrupt the healthcare industry as it exists today,” Optum's attorneys said in the complaint. “Against this quickly evolving and highly competitive backdrop, Optum's continued success depends largely on preserving its intellectual property, including its trade secrets, maintaining the goodwill of its customers and business partnerships, and retaining and relying on its top-level talent.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLitigators of the Week: A Win for Homeless Veterans On the VA's West LA Campus
The Brother-Sister Litigators Who Took on the FTC Over a North Carolina Hospital Merger
'For Love & Life': Touching Base with Skadden Associate and ALS Advocate Brian Wallach
Litigators of the Week: Zuckerman Spaeder Gets a Post-Trial Acquittal for Doctor Accused of Fraudulent Billing for COVID Tests
Trending Stories
- 1'It Refreshes Me': King & Spalding Privacy Leader Doubles as Equestrian Champ
- 2Class Action Filed Against Houston Health Savings Account Firm for Allegedly Confiscating Client Funds
- 3These 2 Lawyers Just Became Florida Judges
- 4'Disease-Causing Bacteria': Colgate and Tom’s of Maine Face Toothpaste Class Action
- 5Trump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250