Discovery Permitted About Development and Use of AI Program

A broad discovery order was entered in Estate of Lokken v. United Health Grp., Inc., 2026 WL 658883 (D. Minn. Mar. 9, 2026).  Lokken is a putative class action “alleging that UnitedHealth Group, Inc., and naviHealth, Inc., used an artificial intelligence program called nH Predict to deny medical care coverage in violation of the terms of the Plaintiffs’ insurance agreements.”  Defendants deny the allegations and claims.

The factual predicate was an allegation that defendants promised that physicians would make claim decisions, but they allegedly used AI, instead. The Lokken court wrote that “a United States Senate investigation report from October 2024 confirmed that UHC’s claim denial rate for post-acute claims more than doubled after they began using naviHealth and nH Predict in 2019, and Plaintiffs allege these denials lacked proper justification.”  Id. at *2.

Plaintiffs moved to compel discovery of “internal and government investigations into UHC’s use of artificial intelligence (‘AI’),” and also “any oversight of AI use by UHC….” The Lokken court wrote:

Plaintiffs next seek to compel responses to RFP 7 and Interrogatory 11, both of which seek discovery regarding the development and use of nH Predict. RFP 7 seeks documents related to the development and use of nH Predict, and Interrogatory 11 seeks the identity of all individuals involved in the development of nH Predict. Plaintiffs argue that responsive discovery would show how nH Predict works, the development goals of nH Predict, its anticipated benefits, and whether nH Predict was designed to supplant physician decision-making. UHC opposes this request based on relevance, arguing that RFP 7 is based on a faulty premise regarding the use of nH Predict. UHC further argues that the data, rules and source code of nH Predict is not relevant to Plaintiffs’ contract claims.

 This Court agrees that Plaintiffs are entitled to discovery of documents regarding how nH Predict works, its development goals and anticipated benefit, and whether it was designed to supplant physician decision-making. This includes not only documents and communications regarding nH Predict’s development, design, creation, approval, implementation, and use, but also the identities of the individuals involved in nH Predict’s development, design, creation, implementation, and approval. Indeed, UHC agrees and either has produced this information or is in the process of producing significant documents that are responsive to RFP 7….  UHC’s use of nH Predict is at the heart of Plaintiffs’ claims, and the identity of individuals that designed, developed, and implement nH Predict is plainly relevant. However, the Court is not persuaded that the data, rules, source code, and medical guidelines nH Predict is based on are relevant to Plaintiffs’ contract claims. Accordingly, with respect to RFP 7, Plaintiffs’ motion is granted-in-part and denied-in-part, and UHC shall produce documents responsive to RFP 7 except that it shall not be required to produce the data, rules, source code, and medical guidelines that nH Predict is based on.

UHC also argues that Interrogatory 11 is based on the “faulty premise” that nH Predict is used to make coverage determinations. Whether nH Predict is used to make coverage determinations, however, is a merits-based argument that the parties can address later in this litigation. For purposes of this Motion, the identity of the individuals involved with the development of nH Predict is plainly relevant, and Plaintiff’s motion will be granted as it relates to Interrogatory 11.

Id. at *3-4 (emphasis added).

What allegations and arguments led to this holding?  The two claims were for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The District Judge had held “that these claims ‘effectively arise out of [Defendants’] evidence of coverage documents because the question whether UHC complied with its statement that claim decisions would be made by ‘clinical services staff’ and ‘physicians’ when it allegedly used artificial intelligence.”

In addressing the temporal scope of discovery, the court wrote: “UHC also argues that these documents are not relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims because UHC did not use nH Predict until July 1, 2019. But whether and how UHC changed its practices when it began using nH Predict is directly relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims. The same is true for any changes UHC undertook with employee incentives, employee discipline, claims denials, or performance evaluations before and after it began using nH Predict. The Court will employ this lens while it determines the issues raised by Plaintiffs’ Motion.” Id. at *3.

The court allowed limited discovery regarding government investigations “concerning UHC’s use of nH Predict or other AI tools in post-acute care claim determinations,” holding that it was “certainly” relevant.  Id. at *4. It denied the request for broad discovery “related to internal or governmental investigations into UHC’s use of nH Predict, algorithms, or AI tools to adjudicate claims,” and other similar matters. Id. The court wrote:

Accordingly, with respect to RFPs 14 and 15, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ Motion in part, and UHC shall produce documents and communications concerning governmental agency or regulatory body investigations related to UHC’s use of nH Predict or AI tools used in relation to the assessment and adjudication of post-acute care claims. Insofar as RFPs 14 and 15 seek internal investigations of UHC’s policies or practices or operations related to UHC’s use of other algorithms or AI tools, however, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ Motion.

Id. at *5.

Plaintiffs also sought discovery of documents “concerning the review, oversight, and analysis of nH Predict” by UHC’s internal AI Review Board….”  Id. at *5. The court agreed that the request was directly relevant to the alleged conduct at issue.

Before extrapolating this decision as authorization for broad discovery into the development and use of AI, here the court wrote that “UHC’s use of nH Predict is at the heart of Plaintiffs’ claims….”  In short, here it was the alleged operation and use of AI that was put in issue by the Complaint.  That is unlike the factual scenario of many other recent analyses.^[1] Additionally, defendants denied the allegations and this decision was based on a motion to compel discovery.  The merits remain at issue.  Defendants stated their intent to move for summary judgment. Id. at *1.

____

[1] See generally “Two Courts, Two Answers: When Does Using AI Waive Privilege?” (Mar. 3, 2026); A.I. Privilege, Heppner, and How Did the Court Learn About the Absence of Certain Attorney-Client Communications Between Mr. Heppner and His Attorneys? (Mar. 2, 2026); “Against an AI Privilege” – Are Prompts Discoverable?  Is Output? (Jan. 2, 2026).