Clustered 3 filings across 2 jurisdictions · filing window Apr 8, 2016 → Apr 12, 2016. View entity profile → Other incidents for this victim →
incident inc_c1022ec58a0b4c1d · merge_method deterministic · confidence 100%
Discovered → first regulatory filing
Time between earliest and latest filing
Not recorded for this incident
Discovery variance · Leak precedence · Materiality delta · SEC filing delay — no leak-site claim in this cluster; no SEC 8-K in this cluster; needs two dated filings.
CA MT
HHS OCR · State AG
Earliest sighting first · deep chronology in Litigation Timeline
Mar 16, 2016
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
Mar 22, 2016
Reported by CALIFORNIA AG filing
OptumRx notified California AG of a March 16, 2016 theft of an unencrypted vendor laptop in Indianapolis. The device contained PHI including names, addresses, health plan info, prescription data, and DOB. No financial data was compromised. OptumRx notified law enforcement, launched an investigation, and offered one year of LifeLock identity theft protection to affected individuals.
OptumRx, Inc. reported a data breach to the Montana Attorney General. The breach was reported on 2016-04-08. The breach occurred on 3/16/2016. 5 Montana residents were affected.
Affected (this filing): 5
OptumRx, Inc. reported to HHS on 2016-04-12 a Theft affecting 7261 individuals. Breached information located on Laptop. A Quarles & Brady workforce member's laptop containing PHI (names, addresses, medications) was stolen from a vehicle in Indianapolis on March 16, 2016. The case was consolidated into an investigation of Quarles & Brady, a business associate of OptumRx.
Affected (this filing): 7,261
About this clustering
DisclosureLens links filings into incidents through layered matchers: deterministic rules (same source document, multistate filings of one breach, tight-window same-victim pairs), a weighted-similarity scorer for cross-source candidates, and an operator review queue for everything uncertain. Each link records its own method and confidence — shown per filing in the timeline below. The system defaults to NOT merging when uncertain, because a false merge (collapsing two unrelated breaches) is more harmful than a false split (showing related filings separately); uncertain pairs route to human review instead of auto-merging. Filing summaries shown in the timeline are AI-generated extracts — verify each against its linked source.