MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This objection arises out of an action in which the plaintiffs, various hospital-based emergency care providers in New York, allege that the defendants, commercial health insurer UnitedHealth Group, Inc. (“United”) and its subsidiaries, have failed to reimburse the plaintiffs for the reasonable value of emergency medical services provided to the defendants’ members. The plaintiffs object to a November 16, 2022 Order of Magistrate Judge Netburn (ECF No. 220) that limited discovery to disputed insurance claims for emergency medical services performed during the period from January 1, 2018, through July 31, 2021. See ECF No. 228 (the “Objection”). The plaintiffs alternatively seek leave to amend the operative amended complaint (ECF No. 97). For the reasons that follow, the Court grants the Objection for the limited purpose of modifying the November 16, 2022 Order to allow discovery into any claims for additional care rendered to “United’s Members,” as that term is defined in paragraph 19 of the amended complaint, but only to the extent that such claims for additional care arose during the period from August 1, 2021, to December 31, 2021. The motion for leave to amend is denied without prejudice to renewal before Magistrate Judge Netburn. I. The plaintiffs commenced this litigation in November 2020. The Court dismissed several of the plaintiffs’ causes of action in September 2021, leaving only the plaintiffs’ claims for unjust enrichment and declaratory relief. The case was later referred to the magistrate judge for general pretrial purposes, including scheduling, discovery, and non-dispositive motions. In a joint letter filed on November 8, 2021, United agreed to assist the plaintiffs in identifying the United subsidiaries responsible for adjudicating the disputed insurance claims, so that the plaintiffs could amend their complaint to include those subsidiaries as defendants. However, United represented to the magistrate judge that it would need “the full list of at-issue claims to begin that process.” ECF No. 80. On November 16, 2021, Magistrate Judge Netburn directed the plaintiffs to provide “a draft order authorizing the limited release of information on the insurance claims that are the subject of the lawsuit,” and to “serve [the] [d]efendants with a list of these claims for the purpose of expediting the identification” of the relevant United subsidiaries. ECF No. 83. That same day, the plaintiffs served United with a list of 8,024 claims associated with medical care rendered during the period from January 1, 2018, to July 1, 2021 (“First Claims List”). Dowd Deel., ECF No. 229, 4. After the parties exchanged additional correspondence and United identified several subsidiary defendants, the magistrate judge ordered the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by February 24, 2022. See ECF No. 95. The plaintiffs timely filed their amended complaint, which alleges that the defendants “implemented a scheme to unjustly enrich themselves by paying [p]laintiffs less than the reasonable value of the emergency care provided” to patients with United insurance. Am. Compl. 5. The plaintiffs specifically allege that “[d]uring the period beginning in January 2018 and ending in July 2021, [p]laintiffs provided emergency care to more than 7,500 patients (‘United’s Members’) covered by commercial insurance plans sold and/or administered by United (the ‘Disputed Claims’).” Id. 19. A footnote at the end of that paragraph reads: “Because [p]laintiffs continue to provide emergency medical services to United’s Members, the Disputed Claims are continuing to accrue.” Id. 19 n.5. The amended complaint also alleges that “[f]or all of the Disputed Claims, United’s failure to pay [p]laintiffs the reasonable value of their services comes at [p]laintiffs’ expense,” id. 68, such that the plaintiffs are entitled to unjust enrichment damages “in an amount which will continue to accrue through the date of trial,” id. 75. In addition, the plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment “prospectively” requiring United to reimburse the plaintiffs for the “reasonable value” of emergency medical services. Id. 82. On June 30, 2022, the plaintiffs served the defendants with a second list of allegedly underpaid claims, which included some of the claims already listed on the First Claims List, as well as 2,450 additional claims associated with medical care provided on dates of service ranging from August 1, 2021, to December 31, 2021. See Dowd Deel.
