Tri State Advanced Surgery Center LLC et al v. Health Choice LLC et al

Filing 148

ORDER denying 138 Motion for Discovery. Signed by Judge James M. Moody Jr. on 3/31/2016. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JONESBORO DIVISION
TRI STATE ADVANCED SURGERY
CENTER, LLC, GLENN A. CROSBY II, M.D.,
F.A.C.S., and MICHAEL HOOD, M.D.
v.

PLAINTIFFS

No. 3:14cv143-JM

HEALTH CHOICE, LLC and
CIGNA HEALTHCARE OF TENNESSEE, INC.
DEFENDANTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, AND CIGNA
HEALTHCAR E OF TENNESSEE, INC.
COUNTERCLAIM-PLAINTIFFS
v.
SURGICAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT, INC D/B/A
SURGCENTER DEVELOPMENT and TRI STATE
ADVANCED SURGERY CENTER, LLC

COUNTERCLAIM-DEFENDANTS

ORDER
A hearing was held on March 29, 2016 on the motion for miscellaneous discovery relief
filed by Surgery Center Development, Inc. (“SurgCenter”), Tri State Advanced Surgery, LLC
(Tri State) and Doctors Crosby and Hood (Docket No. 138). The motion was opposed by Cigna
Healthcare of Tennessee, Inc., Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company, and Connecticut
General Life Insurance Company (collectively “Cigna”). As stated on the record, that motion is
denied.
Counsel for SurgCenter, Tri State, and Doctors Crosby and Hood are seeking access to
discovery materials produced pursuant to a protective order in Arapahoe Surgery Center, LLC, at
al. v. Cigna Healthcare, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:13cv3442 (D. Colo) (“Arapahoe”). While
counsel for the parties to the Arapahoe protective order could themselves have consented to the

relief requested by the movant’s at this time, and have done so in another action involving these
parties in Maryland, the Court is unwilling to order this result over Cigna’s objection.
Furthermore, the request is untimely and would place additional burdens on Cigna’s preparations
in this matter to expand the scope of documents in this case to include those confidential
documents produced in Arapahoe.
For these reasons, the motion for miscellaneous discovery relief (Docket No. 138) is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of March, 2016.

______________________________
James M. Moody Jr.
United States District Judge

2