Case: 2:21-cv-00319-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 38 Filed: 03/15/21 Page: 1 of 43 PAGEID #: 1647
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES,
`INC., et al.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. 2:21-cv-319
` JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
`
` Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`JEFFREY CORZINE,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OPINION AND ORDER
`
`This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. (ECF
`
`No. 2.) Defendant Jeffrey Corzine submitted a Response in Opposition (ECF No. 25), and
`
`Plaintiffs replied (ECF No. 31). The Court held an evidentiary hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion on
`
`February 19 and February 22, 2021. The parties submitted post-hearing briefing on the testimony
`
`and have each responded to the other side’s briefing. (ECF Nos. 32–35.) For the reasons set forth
`
`below, Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED IN PART.
`
`I. FINDINGS OF FACT
`
`Plaintiffs United HealthCare Services, Inc. and UnitedHealth Group, Inc. (collectively,
`
`“United”) initiated this action against Defendant Jeffrey Corzine seeking enforcement of non-
`
`competition and non-solicitation covenants to which Corzine agreed while employed at United.
`
`UnitedHealth Group, a Delaware corporation based in Minnesota, is a national diversified
`
`health care company offering health care coverage and benefits through a family of affiliate
`
`companies. (Roaldi Decl. ¶ 3.) United HealthCare Services, one of those affiliate companies, is
`
`UnitedHealth Group’s health care benefits business. (Id.) United HealthCare Services offers
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case: 2:21-cv-00319-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 38 Filed: 03/15/21 Page: 2 of 43 PAGEID #: 1648
`
`commercial health insurance as well as insurance for Medicaid and Medicare beneficiaries. (Id. ¶
`
`4.) The UnitedHealthcare Community Plan of Ohio, Inc. (“Ohio plan”) operates under a contract
`
`with the Ohio Department of Medicaid (“ODM”) as a benefits plan for Ohio Medicaid
`
`beneficiaries—known as a “managed care organization” or “managed care plan.” United obtained
`
`this contract through a competitive procurement in 2012.
`
`Defendant Jeffrey Corzine began employment with United’s Ohio plan in 2008. From
`
`2014 to 2019, Corzine worked in a strategic marketing role for the Ohio plan. United terminated
`
`Corzine in October of 2019 after a national restructuring. Corzine was subsequently hired by
`
`Humana, Inc. in February of 2020. Like United, Humana is large health care company that offers
`
`health care benefits, among other services. At the time Humana hired Corzine, Humana operated
`
`managed care plans under Medicaid contracts with other states, but not Ohio. However, Humana
`
`was actively preparing to enter the Ohio Medicaid market in anticipation of ODM re-procuring the
`
`State’s Medicaid contract. In the fall of 2020, ODM initiated the procurement by issuing a Request
`
`for Applications, the standard process used to procure a state Medicaid contract. United and
`
`Humana, along with nine other managed care organizations, both submitted applications to obtain
`
`a contract with ODM.
`
`This dispute began when United learned in January of 2021 that Corzine was involved in
`
`Humana’s application to ODM. United alleges that Corzine’s activity at Humana breached the
`
`non-competition and non-solicitation covenants contained in Stock Option Awards and Restricted
`
`Stock Unit Awards that Corzine signed while at United.
`
`A. The Ohio Medicaid Business and the UnitedHealthcare Community Plan
`
`This case requires background knowledge of the Ohio Medicaid market. Each state
`
`administers Medicaid differently. Ohio contracts with private health insurance companies to
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 2:21-cv-00319-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 38 Filed: 03/15/21 Page: 3 of 43 PAGEID #: 1649
`
`provide benefits to Medicaid members through a competitive procurement process. To initiate a
`
`competitive procurement, the State issues a Request for Applications (“RFA”). Companies
`
`seeking to provide managed care services submit detailed applications per the prompts listed in
`
`the RFA. The State then selects organizations from the pool of applicants. At a basic level, ODM
`
`contracts with the selected managed care plans and those plans cover the medical benefits,
`
`“including behavioral health services and prescription drugs,” for the individuals enrolled in the
`
`plan. (Ex. 159.) The State pays the managed care organizations, and the organizations pay the
`
`claims submitted by the Medicaid members enrolled in the plan. Over 3 million Ohioans are
`
`covered under the Ohio Medicaid program.
`
`Ohio last issued an RFA in 2012. The State selected United and four other plans to provide
`
`benefits under the State Medicaid contract beginning in 2013. According to Michael Roaldi, the
`
`CEO of United’s Ohio plan, the State selects multiple providers to encourage competition and give
`
`Medicaid members choice between competing plans. When a person becomes eligible for
`
`Medicaid, the person has an option to enroll in a healthcare plan of their choice or to do nothing.
`
`If the person does nothing, ODM assigns that person to one of the competing plans based on a
`
`computer algorithm. The computer algorithm accounts for the performance metrics of each plan
`
`as evaluated by ODM; better performance can result in a higher number of Medicaid members
`
`assigned to a plan. ODM also divides the State into three regions. Based on performance, some
`
`plans are given the choice to service only particular regions, while other plans are selected to
`
`service all regions. Under the current Medicaid contract, roughly half of Ohio’s Medicaid
`
`members are served by CareSource, a non-profit. That leaves the remaining 1.5 million Medicaid
`
`beneficiaries to the other four plans.
`
` United’s current Ohio plan provides coverage to roughly 350,000 Ohio Medicaid
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 2:21-cv-00319-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 38 Filed: 03/15/21 Page: 4 of 43 PAGEID #: 1650
`
`beneficiaries in all three regions. The plan employs a CEO and other executive leadership, nurses
`
`and community health workers, quality staff, and operations staff. Roaldi testified that the plan
`
`has over 300 employees. The plan considers its business to have two distinct customers. First is
`
`the State of Ohio; the State “hires” the plan and dictates how and where it operates. Second is the
`
`Medicaid member the plan insures. The RFA process is the only way for a company to enter the
`
`Ohio Medicaid market.
`
`B. The 2020 Ohio RFA
`
`In January of 2019, Governor Michael DeWine announced that the State intended to re-
`
`procure Ohio’s Medicaid contract. Prior to Governor DeWine’s announcement, United had held
`
`occasional strategy meetings to stay prepared in case a new RFA was released. According to
`
`Roaldi, it is vital for a managed care plan to stay prepared for a new procurement because the State
`
`has discretion end the current contract and request applications for a new Medicaid contract at any
`
`time. After Governor DeWine’s announcement, the company moved into the “active solutioning
`
`phase” to prepare for the RFA. United created a “core group” of employees from the Ohio plan
`
`and from United’s national Medicaid team. The core group held daily meetings to strategize for
`
`the RFA’s release. The questions and criteria for the RFA are unknown until the RFA is released.
`
`But in the 18 months leading up to the 2020 RFA’s release, ODM made public announcements
`
`indicating its priorities for the upcoming procurement. United’s executive leaders strategized for
`
`the upcoming RFA based on these statements and on the plan’s experiences operating under the
`
`current contract since 2013.
`
`ODM issued the 2020 RFA on September 30, 2020. (Ex. 159.) Written applications were
`
`due on November 20, 2020. (Id.) The RFA asked applicants to respond to questions in the
`
`following topic areas: (1) the organization’s qualifications and experience; (2) population health;
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 2:21-cv-00319-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 38 Filed: 03/15/21 Page: 5 of 43 PAGEID #: 1651
`
`(3) benefits and service delivery; and (4) operational excellence. Applications are typically
`
`hundreds of pages long and are highly confidential until the awards are announced. An Evaluation
`
`Committee grades the applications. Each topic area has a maximum number of points available,
`
`and a total of 1000 points are available on the written application. In addition to the written
`
`response, the application includes an oral presentation for 100 additional points on the grading
`
`rubric, for a total of 1100 available points. (Id.) The 2020 RFA allocates a significant amount of
`
`points to the “population health” topic, something not mentioned at all in the 2012 RFA. (Ex.
`
`159.) ODM describes “population health” as an approach to Medicaid that is “designed to address
`
`health inequities and disparities and achieve optimal outcomes for the holistic well-being of
`
`individuals receiving Medicaid.” (Id.) An important component of population health is the “social
`
`determinants of health,” what ODM describes as the “complex, integrated, and overlapping social
`
`and economic risk factors that impact health outcomes and health statuses.” (Id.)
`
`C. Corzine’s Role at United and his Termination in the Fall of 2019
`
`Defendant Jeffrey Corzine has worked in the Ohio Medicaid industry since 1985. Prior to
`
`joining the UnitedHealthcare Community Plan of Ohio in 2008, Corzine worked for many years
`
`as a regulator for ODM and ODM’s precursor in the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services.
`
`In 2008, Corzine received an offer from Unison Health, which had just been acquired by United.
`
`Unison Health had a Medicaid plan in Ohio, which became United’s plan after the acquisition.
`
`Corzine’s first role at United was the Chief Operating Officer of United’s Ohio plan. After the
`
`2012 RFA process and the issuance of a new Medicaid contract in 2013, Corzine transitioned into
`
`a marketing role as Vice President for Strategic Account Development, in which he worked until
`
`his termination in 2019.
`
`In his strategic account development role, Corzine focused primarily on developing and
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 2:21-cv-00319-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 38 Filed: 03/15/21 Page: 6 of 43 PAGEID #: 1652
`
`maintaining relationships with “external stakeholders” to support the plan’s goals. Corzine also
`
`sought to identify innovative business opportunities for the plan with a particular focus on the
`
`social determinants of health. Roaldi explained that there are several external stakeholders
`
`important to the Ohio Medicaid program, such as hospitals, physician groups, policy thinktanks,
`
`and community organizations. Maintaining positive relationships with these stakeholders is
`
`critical to improving the performance and impression of the plan. Corzine was also a key point of
`
`contact between United and ODM. According to Roaldi, Corzine worked with ODM officials on
`
`a weekly or even daily basis to gain insight into their priorities and relay the information back to
`
`United’s executive leadership team. Corzine’s annual self-reviews show that he maintained
`
`relationships with a variety of organizations, committees, agencies, and state legislators on behalf
`
`of the United plan.
`
`Corzine testified that the Medicaid landscape leading up to the 2020 RFA was vastly
`
`different from 2012. Between the two RFAs, significantly more and different populations had
`
`been added to Medicaid; ODM had changed directors three times; and, in 2017, ODM expanded
`
`its behavioral health benefit from 16 billable codes to over 50 billable codes and integrated this
`
`behavioral health benefit into the managed care benefits for the first time, which Corzine described
`
`as a significant change. Corzine’s annual self-review for the calendar year 2016 shows that he
`
`participated in all behavioral health redesign meetings hosted by ODM and the Ohio Department
`
`of Mental Health and Addiction Services. (Ex. 128.) In his review for the calendar year 2018,
`
`Corzine stated that he “participated in more than 2 dozen meetings with Legislators on budget,
`
`Medicaid Extension, [Behavioral Health] and general Managed care issues.” (Ex. 95.)
`
`In early 2019 when United ramped up its RFA preparation, United asked Corzine to assist
`
`the solutioning team in preparation for the RFA. Corzine testified that as a “local subject matter
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 2:21-cv-00319-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 38 Filed: 03/15/21 Page: 7 of 43 PAGEID #: 1653
`
`expert,” his role during these strategy meetings was to give his insight on the community and “how
`
`organizations were feeling and what they felt might be important to them if they had the
`
`opportunity to weigh in.” Corzine participated in United’s weekly confidential RFA strategy
`
`meetings in 2019.
`
`For example, in March 2019, Corzine attended the first strategy meeting following
`
`Governor DeWine’s RFA announcement in January. Corzine vaguely recalled the meeting, but
`
`Roaldi (who was also present) testified that Corzine was a key participant and that Corzine gave a
`
`presentation on the social determinants of health. (See Ex. 36.) Subsequent strategy meeting
`
`agendas featured Corzine. During the August 7, 2019 strategy meeting, Corzine was the lead
`
`presenter and gave “Ohio Leadership updates.” (Ex. 35.) Much of the information Corzine utilized
`
`for these meetings was public information. But Roaldi testified that Corzine was not just relaying
`
`public information to the core group. Rather, Corzine was providing his interpretation of the
`
`relevance of the information for United’s RFA bid strategy. During these meetings, the United
`
`team discussed the plan’s strengths and weaknesses relative to ODM’s priorities.
`
`In the fall of 2019, United’s national leadership decided to eliminate marketing positions
`
`at state health plans. Employees in these roles, like Corzine, were either terminated or offered a
`
`position with United’s national group. In early October 2019, United informed Corzine that it was
`
`terminating his employment and providing him with 18 weeks’ severance pay; United did not offer
`
`him a position at the national level. Prior to Corzine’s final day, but after he had learned of his
`
`termination, Corzine participated in a strategy meeting titled “RFA Preparations: Strategy and
`
`Solution Review” with a third-party consulting firm. (Ex. 40.) Corzine also created a spreadsheet
`
`of his work activities at the time of his termination so that Roaldi could determine whether any of
`
`Corzine’s efforts needed to continue. (Ex. 27.) The spreadsheet details the array of organizations
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 2:21-cv-00319-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 38 Filed: 03/15/21 Page: 8 of 43 PAGEID #: 1654
`
`with which Corzine maintained contact on behalf of the United plan. (Id.) It also details his
`
`activities related to United’s RFA preparation. Corzine described his RFA activities as:
`
`“Subject matter expert, assist various working Committees as needed in
`development of RFA response materials, listening session visits with stakeholders.
`Assist where needed and requested: Stakeholder listening sessions; Ohio
`Investments Check in meeting; Strategic Engagement; Ohio Reprocurement
`Meetings; Ohio Milestone Checkpoint meetings; RFA Touchbase meeting with
`C&S PM.”
`
`(Id.) Corzine’s final day with United was October 16, 2019. Because Corzine’s employment was
`
`terminated 11 months before ODM released the RFA, Corzine did not play a role in drafting
`
`United’s written application. Corzine also testified that he did not take any of United’s confidential
`
`material with him after his termination, and the Court finds that his testimony is credible.
`
`D. The Covenants
`
`Throughout his employment with United, Corzine was given Stock Option and Restricted
`
`Stock Unit Awards. The overall value of Corzine’s equity comes out to roughly $162,000. On
`
`February 26, 2019, Corzine signed a Stock Option Award and a Restricted Stock Unit Award.
`
`(Exs. 93, 94.) The Option Award granted Corzine 321 option shares at the price of $262.98. (Ex.
`
`93.) The Restricted Stock Unit Award (“RSU Award”) granted Corzine 58 units, with a final
`
`vesting date of February 26, 2023. (Ex. 94.)
`
`The two agreements contain similar non-competition, non-solicitation, and non-disclosure
`
`covenants. Only the non-competition and non-solicitation provisions are at issue in this case. The
`
`covenants in the Option Award and RSU Award apply on a nationwide basis anywhere in the
`
`United States. (Ex. 93, §4(d); Ex. 94, § 8(d).) Both contain nearly identical non-competition and
`
`non-solicitation covenants. (Ex. 93, § 4(b), (c); Ex. 94, § 8(b), (c).)
`
`1. Covenants in the Option Award
`
`Non-competition. The non-competition provision provides, in relevant part:
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case: 2:21-cv-00319-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 38 Filed: 03/15/21 Page: 9 of 43 PAGEID #: 1655
`
`“During the Optionee’s employment and for the greater of one year after
`termination of the Optionee’s employment for any reason whatsoever or the period
`of time for which the Option remains exercisable, the Optionee may not …directly
`or indirectly …:
`
`
`(i) Engage in or participate in any activity that competes, directly or indirectly,
`with any Company activity, product or service that Optionee engaged in,
`participated in, or had Confidential Information about during Optionee’s
`last 36 months of employment with the Company; or
`
`
`(ii) Assist anyone in any of the activities listed above.”
`
`
`(Ex. 93, § 4(c) (emphasis added).)
`
`
`Non-solicitation. The non-solicitation provision provides, in relevant part:
`
`During the Optionee’s employment and for the greater of two years after
`the termination of the Optionee’s employment for any reason whatsoever, or the
`period of time for which the Option remains exercisable, the Optionee may not …
`directly or indirectly …:
`
`
`(i) Solicit or conduct business with any business competitive with the
`Company from any person or entity: (A) who was a Company provider or
`customer within the 12 months before Optionee’s employment termination
`and with whom Optionee had contact regarding the Company’s activity,
`products or services … or about whom the Optionee learned Confidential
`Information during employment related to the Company’s provision of
`products or services to such Company provider or customer.
`
`
`(Id. § 4(b) (emphasis added).)
`
`
`2. Covenants in the Restricted Stock Unit Award
`
`Non-competition. The non-competition provision of the RSU Award provides, in relevant
`
`
`
`“During Participant’s employment and for one year after the later of (i) the
`termination of Participant’s employment for any reason whatsoever or (ii) the last
`scheduled vesting date under Section 4, Participant may not … directly or indirectly
`…:
`
`
`(i) Engage in or participate in any activity that competes, directly or indirectly,
`with any Company activity, product or service that Optionee engaged in,
`participated in, or had Confidential Information about during Optionee’s
`last 36 months of employment with the Company; or
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`part:
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 2:21-cv-00319-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 38 Filed: 03/15/21 Page: 10 of 43 PAGEID #: 1656
`
`(ii) Assist anyone in any of the activities listed above.”
`
`
`(Ex. 94, § 8(c) (emphasis added).)
`
`Non-solicitation. The non-solicitation provision of the RSU Award provides, in relevant
`
`part:
`
`During Participant’s employment and for two years after the later of (i) the
`termination of Participant’s employment for any reason whatsoever or (ii) the last
`scheduled vesting date under Section 4, Participant may not … directly or indirectly
`…:
`
`
`(i) Solicit or conduct business with any business competitive with the
`Company from any person or entity: (A) who was a Company provider or
`customer within the 12 months before Optionee’s employment termination
`and with whom Optionee had contact regarding the Company’s activity,
`products or services … or about whom the Optionee learned Confidential
`Information during employment related to the Company’s provision of
`products or services to such Company provider or customer.
`
`
`(Id., § 8(b) (emphasis added).)
`
`3. Alternative Durations of the Covenants
`
`As shown above, the non-competition and non-solicitation covenants in both agreements
`
`contain alternative durations.
`
`In the RSU Award, the non-solicitation duration is the later of: (1) two years after
`
`termination; or (2) two years after last scheduled vesting date under Section 4 of the agreement.
`
`Same for the non-competition provision, but with a duration of one year. The duration of Corzine’s
`
`RSU Award covenants therefore depend on the last vesting date of his stock units under Section 4
`
`of the agreement. Section 4 provides that, ordinarily, any unvested stock units are immediately
`
`forfeited upon an employee’s termination. (Id., § 4(a).) However, if an employee is eligible for
`
`retirement at the time of termination, “the vesting of the Restricted Stock Units shall continue as
`
`if such termination had not occurred[.]” (Id., § 4(d).) An employee is eligible for retirement if, at
`
`the time of termination, the employee is at least 55 years old with at least 10 years of employment
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case: 2:21-cv-00319-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 38 Filed: 03/15/21 Page: 11 of 43 PAGEID #: 1657
`
`with the company. (Id., § 4(e).) Section 4 also contains other conditions that affect the vesting
`
`dates for stock units after termination. (See id.)
`
`Corzine was eligible for retirement at the time of his termination (he was 60 years old and
`
`had 11 years of employment with United). He also retained his restricted stock units. So, his
`
`restricted stock units continued to vest under the ordinary vesting schedule. Under that schedule,
`
`25% of the restricted stock units vest on the first, second, third, and fourth anniversary of the
`
`award—meaning that the units continue to vest until vested in full four years from the date of the
`
`award. The date of Corzine’s RSU Award is February 26, 2019, meaning his units would not vest
`
`fully until February 26, 2023. (Id., § 2.) However, the agreement provides that a party
`
`immediately forfeits any unvested restricted stock units upon a violation of the restrictive
`
`covenants. (Id., § 7(a).)
`
`For the Option Award, the covenants last for the later of: (1) one year (non-competition)
`
`or two years (non-solicitation) after termination; or (2) as long as the stock options remain
`
`exercisable. Corzine’s options remained exercisable until 2029 if he had not been terminated. For
`
`a terminated retirement-eligible employee—defined the same as under the RSU Award—the
`
`options remain exercisable for the shorter of (1) the expiration date of the options or (2) five years
`
`after the termination of employment. (Id., § 2(d).) Applied to Corzine, his options remained
`
`exercisable for up to five years after his October 16, 2019 termination. But, like the RSU Award,
`
`the agreement provides that the stock options are forfeited upon any violation of the agreement’s
`
`restrictive covenants. (Id., § 2(f).)
`
`E. Corzine’s Alleged Violations of the Covenants at Humana
`
`In early October 2019, after Corzine learned he would be terminated from United, Corzine
`
`began looking for other employment. Among other jobs, Corzine applied for a job at Humana,
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case: 2:21-cv-00319-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 38 Filed: 03/15/21 Page: 12 of 43 PAGEID #: 1658
`
`Inc. At that time, Humana—like United—was actively preparing a bid to enter the Ohio Medicaid
`
`market whenever ODM issued the RFA to which Governor DeWine alluded in January 2019.
`
`Corzine initially applied and interviewed for Humana’s “Ohio Market Leader” job posting (the
`
`CEO of Humana’s Ohio Medicaid team). The job description states that the “State Market Leader
`
`will be responsible for the overall strategic direction, oversight, and administration of programs
`
`and services for our Medicaid program in Ohio … They will publicly represent Humana Medicaid
`
`in Ohio, while enhancing and further developing relationships and stakeholders throughout the
`
`state.” (Ex. 54.)
`
`During the application process, Corzine disclosed his United restrictive covenants to
`
`Humana. Because of Corzine’s restrictive covenants, Humana reached out to United in December
`
`of 2019 to see if United objected to Corzine working as Humana’s Ohio Market Leader. (Ex. 56.)
`
`United responded that it expected Corzine to comply with his restrictive covenants. (Ex. 123.)
`
`Specifically, United informed Humana that Corzine “should not engage in any activity related to
`
`Humana providing managed care services in Ohio or any efforts to obtain a contract regarding
`
`same. He should not share any information regarding the Ohio market or UnitedHealthcare’s plan
`
`in Ohio with an individual that might work on efforts to obtain a Medicaid contract in Ohio.” (Id.)
`
`United did not object to Corzine working for Humana in a Medicaid role outside of Ohio.
`
`Following the discussions about Corzine’s covenants, Humana hired Corzine as its South
`
`Carolina Market Leader (the CEO of Humana’s Medicaid plan in South Carolina). Humana also
`
`continued its preparation for Ohio’s upcoming RFA. Corzine began working as Humana’s South
`
`Carolina Market Leader in February of 2020. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Corzine worked
`
`in this role remotely from his Columbus, Ohio home. Humana’s corporate representative testified
`
`that using Corzine in South Carolina was a short-term plan.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case: 2:21-cv-00319-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 38 Filed: 03/15/21 Page: 13 of 43 PAGEID #: 1659
`
`Beginning in March 2020, while Corzine was working as Humana’s South Carolina Market
`
`Leader, Corzine began participating in weekly calls with Humana’s Ohio Medicaid business
`
`development team. Corzine testified that during these meetings, he provided updates on public
`
`policy developments in Ohio, including answering the business development team’s questions
`
`related to Medicaid. According to Corzine, the business development team’s goal was to “make
`
`Humana known within the community at large prior to their release of a competitive bid,”
`
`something that every healthy plan does. Beginning in April or May of 2020, Corzine started
`
`participating in Humana’s weekly Ohio RFA planning meetings. At these meetings, Corzine
`
`provided input on Ohio Medicaid policy and provided interpretations of public statements released
`
`by ODM related to the upcoming RFA. When ODM released the RFA on September 29, 2020,
`
`the Humana team held meetings every few days to prepare its application. Corzine testified that
`
`he participated in several of these meetings between September 29 and October 15, 2020. Corzine
`
`also offered comments on early drafts of Humana’s RFA application prior to October 15, 2020.
`
`Around October 16, 2020—one year from his last day at United—Corzine transitioned
`
`from his South Carolina role into his current role as Humana’s Ohio Market Leader. Corzine
`
`believed that his non-competition agreement expired one year from his termination from United.
`
`Humana did not inform United that Corzine had taken over as Ohio Market Leader. After Corzine
`
`took over as Ohio Market Leader, Corzine oversaw Humana’s RFA application strategy. Corzine
`
`also participated in each level of review for Humana’s RFA written application, offering
`
`substantive comments on drafts of the application. (Ex. 19.) After the November 20, 2020
`
`deadline for the written applications, Corzine submitted a survey to the business development
`
`department regarding the Ohio RFA. On the survey, Corzine listed “Knowledge of Ohio
`
`Medicaid” and “Experience working with Medicaid managed care programs” as factors that helped
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case: 2:21-cv-00319-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 38 Filed: 03/15/21 Page: 14 of 43 PAGEID #: 1660
`
`him deliver his best work on the Ohio RFA. (Ex. 12.)
`
`After the written application deadline, Humana continued preparation for the oral
`
`presentations slated for early January 2021. The oral presentations account for 100 points out of
`
`the possible total of 1100 of an application’s score. Corzine, as the Market Leader, played a central
`
`role in preparation for the oral presentations. (See Ex. 21.) Corzine led of a group of seven
`
`Humana plan executives who presented on Humana’s behalf at the oral presentations. (See Ex.
`
`22.)
`
`United first learned that Corzine was involved in Humana’s Ohio RFA application on
`
`January 7, 2021, just prior to the oral presentations. ODM sent the RFA applicants an email with
`
`an attached list of questions and answers related to the upcoming oral presentation. (Ex. 107.)
`
`Corzine and Roaldi, the United plan CEO, were both copied on the email. Roaldi, upon seeing
`
`Corzine’s Humana email address copied on the email from ODM, forwarded the email to United’s
`
`in-house counsel for review. On January 9, 2021, United’s counsel wrote to Humana’s counsel
`
`stating that United learned that Corzine was scheduled to give an oral presentation as part of
`
`Humana’s bid, and that Corzine’s conduct was “in direct violation of the non-competition and non-
`
`solicitation obligations he continues to owe to UnitedHealthcare.” (Ex. 122.) United explained
`
`that it expected Humana to take immediate action to remedy Corzine’s alleged violations. (Id.)
`
`Corzine participated in Humana’s oral presentation in front of the ODM panel on January
`
`12, 2021. Following the presentation, Corzine sent an email to a Humana colleague with the names
`
`of the panelists during the oral presentation. (Ex. 86.) In an email later that day, Corzine indicated
`
`that the presentation “went well” and that he “personally knew all of the state staff on the call with
`
`the exception of one person.” (Ex. 109.) Another Humana team member indicated that the
`
`presentation “went really well” and highlighted that “[a] number of the state staff said hello to Jeff
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case: 2:21-cv-00319-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 38 Filed: 03/15/21 Page: 15 of 43 PAGEID #: 1661
`
`personally at the introduction part of the orals.” (Ex. 86.) Corzine testified that he did not use any
`
`of United’s confidential information during his preparations for the oral presentation and did not
`
`use any of United’s strategies for the presentation. Roaldi testified that United does not have
`
`reason to believe that Corzine has used any of United’s confidential information during his time
`
`at Humana.
`
`A little over a week later, on January 20, 2021, United sent Corzine a letter informing him
`
`that he was in violation of his restrictive covenants and that his unvested equity was forfeited and
`
`considered null and void. (Ex. 171.) Corzine’s last scheduled vesting date under the RSU Award
`
`occurred on February 26, 2020. Thus, United asks the Court to measure Corzine’s one-year non-
`
`compete and two-year non-solicit obligations from February 26, 2020. United initiated this lawsuit
`
`on January 24, 2021 and filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction on the same day. (ECF Nos.
`
`1–2.)
`
`F. Current Status of the 2020 RFA Process
`
`11 companies applied for a contract with ODM in response to the 2020 RFA. ODM’s
`
`original schedule listed January 25, 2021 as the date ODM would issue award notification letters.
`
`(Ex. 159 at 5.) As it stands, over a month after that date, ODM has not issued award notifications.
`
`ODM divides the state into three regions and anticipates that it will make “multiple awards per
`
`region” but “anticipates no more than five Applicants per region.” (Id. at 3.) Thus, there are
`
`several possible outcomes for United’s and Humana’s applications. Both companies could be
`
`awarded a contract to service all three regions. Both could be awarded contract to service only
`
`some regions. One could be awarded a contract while the other does not obtain a contract. And
`
`the list goes on. ODM also has discretion to throw out the applications and start over, which is
`
`considered highly unlikely.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case: 2:21-cv-00319-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 38 Filed: 03/15/21 Page: 16 of 43 PAGEID #: 1662
`
`The applicants are in a no-contact period with ODM until the award notifications are
`
`issued. After ODM issues the award notifications, the parties have seven business days to file a
`
`protest to the award selections. (Id. at 10.) After the protest period, the successful parties will
`
`execute the Provider Agreement and are scheduled to begin p