Hartford HealthCare Corp. must hand over internal documents detailing its $86.1 million acquisitions of two hospitals from bankrupt Prospect Medical to a group of plaintiffs who accuse the health system of trying to create a monopoly for inpatient hospital services, a Connecticut state court judge has ruled.

Superior Court Judge John B. Farley on Tuesday ordered Hartford HealthCare and related entity Integrated Care Partners LLC to produce copies of a presentation that was created for a special board meeting in June, along with 19 slides from a September presentation to the board, concerning the takeover of Rockville General and Manchester Memorial hospitals.

The plaintiffs in the antitrust proposed class action moved Dec. 3 to force the defendants to provide the materials, which they said are "probative of key disputes of fact" over issues like the state of hospital competition in Connecticut and the Hartford area, Hartford HealthCare's assessment of its own market power, the boundaries of product and geographic markets, and whether the nonprofit system's acquisitions raise prices.

"To the extent that these materials inadequately reflect the defendant's rationale for the transaction, the plaintiff may return to the court to seek additional, specifically identified documents," Judge Farley's order said.

The plaintiffs — six health insurance policyholders in Connecticut, some of whom were Hartford HealthCare patients, and a nonprofit that targets health inequity — told the court that in August 2024 they requested documents related to all acquisitions that Hartford HealthCare was considering, but they learned of its successful bid to buy Rockville General and Manchester Memorial by reading a media report in October 2025.

Hartford HealthCare replied Jan. 16 that the plaintiffs have "sought to pursue overbroad, freewheeling discovery, across all aspects of Hartford HealthCare's operations." Their request for the presentation documents came four years into the case.

The suit brings claims including monopolization, restraint of trade and unlawful tying in violation of the Connecticut Antitrust Act. It accuses Hartford HealthCare and Integrated Care Partners, its 4,500-member provider network, of price fixing, unfair trade practices and jointly refusing to contract with certain insurance providers.

"Despite claiming non-profit status, HHC's profit margins are projected to be over 8% in the coming years, which will result in HHC extracting roughly $500 million per year in profits from Connecticut residents," the complaint says. "This profit margin is largely a result of HHC's practice of illegally using its market power to force employers, patients, and insurers to accept supracompetitive prices for lower-quality care."

The plaintiffs' motion to compel said Hartford HealthCare already had as much as 55% market share for inpatient hospital services in the state capital, and if the court determines that the two additional hospitals are in the same market, the share will rise to more than 60% and the transaction would be presumptively unlawful. Amid a state-level regulatory review, the health system successfully moved to seal a market impact review, the plaintiffs said.

Hartford HealthCare said the news of its acquisitions should have come as no surprise, as "it is well-known that Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc., which owned three hospitals in Connecticut, went bankrupt after a failed acquisition of those hospitals by Yale New Haven Health and that the state of Connecticut has been seeking a buyer to rescue these three hospitals from financial ruin."

Yale New Haven Health Services Corp. spent most of 2025 locked in litigation with Prospect, seeking to escape a purchase agreement for the hospitals while Prospect countersued to force the sale to go through. Months after Prospect sought Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in Texas, the parties settled and Yale agreed to pay $45 million; the bankruptcy judge greenlit a $35 million sale of Waterbury Hospital to two UConn Health units and Hartford HealthCare was allowed to buy Rockville General and Manchester Memorial.

Manchester Memorial is in Manchester, and Rockville General is in Vernon. Both towns neighbor Hartford.

Hartford HealthCare said in its defense that Connecticut public health officials consider the transaction "a great relief — ensuring the survival of these community hospitals to maintain patient access and potentially improve the quality of care provided at those hospitals" but claimed the plaintiffs' counsel saw "an opportunity to harass, and inflict even more burdens" on the defense.

The state's Office of Health Strategy imposed conditions on the deal that "moot" the plaintiffs' allegations, according to the defense, including limits on rate increases and a ban on all-or-nothing, anti-steering, anti-tiering and gag clauses in payer contracts.

The plaintiffs countered that OHS found the transaction would "considerably" increase market concentration and "likely" lead to higher prices. They said the conditions sunset after three years and the state has reserved the right to send its antitrust enforcers after Hartford HealthCare if necessary.

Counsel for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Wednesday.

The plaintiffs are represented by Matthew L. Cantor, Lily M. Fagin and J. Wyatt Fore of Shinder Cantor Lerner LLP, Robin A. van der Meulen and Matthew J. Perez of Scott + Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, Peter A. Gwynne and E. Danya Perry of Perry Law PLLC and Jamie Crooks and Yinka Onayemi of Fairmark Partners LLP.

Hartford HealthCare and ICP are represented by Stephen Weissman, Jamie E. France and Eric J. Stock of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Thomas J. Dillickrath, Leo Caseria and Joseph Antel of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP and Karen T. Staib and Patrick M. Fahey of Shipman & Goodwin LLP.

The case is Brown et al. v. Hartford Healthcare Corp., case number HHD-CV-22-6152239-S, in the Hartford Judicial District of the Connecticut Superior Court.