The Arc of California, et al v. Douglas, et al

Filing 144

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 6/19/14 ORDERING that plaintiff's 136 motion to compel is DENIED. The denial is without prejudice to renewal of the motion if the Medicaid claim is reinstated and plaintiffs are granted permission to exceed the presumptive limit on the number of interrogatories. Defendants's 134 motion to compel is granted in part. Within 28 days, plaintiffs shall provide further responses to the interrogatories. The court finds an award of expenses is not warranted. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ARC OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14

No. 2:11-cv-2545 MCE CKD

v.

ORDER

TOBY DOUGLAS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel and defendants’ motion to compel came on regularly for

17
18

hearing on June 18, 2014. Chad Carlock appeared for plaintiffs. Grant Lien appeared for

19

defendants. Upon review of the documents in support and opposition, upon hearing the

20

arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AND ORDERS

21

AS FOLLOWS:
1. For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF

22
23

No. 136) is denied. The denial is without prejudice to renewal of the motion if the Medicaid

24

claim is reinstated and plaintiffs are granted permission to exceed the presumptive limit on the

25

number of interrogatories.
2. Defendants’ motion to compel (ECF No. 134) is granted in part. Within twenty-eight

26
27

days, plaintiffs shall provide further responses to the interrogatories as follows:

28

/////
1

1

No. 7--current lists of consumer members, to the extent maintained by the plaintiff

2

associations and their respective subchapters. Plaintiffs shall also provide UCI numbers

3

for the identified members, to the extent these numbers are maintained by the individual

4

subchapters of the plaintiff associations;

5

No. 10--lists of provider members from 2008 to the present, to the extent known

6

by the plaintiff associations and their respective subchapters;

7

No. 18--lists of provider members from 2008 to the present which have ceased

8

operations and the reasons therefor, to the extent known by the plaintiff associations and

9

their respective subchapters.

10
11
12

The motion to compel further responses to interrogatories nos. 1, 14, 15, 17, 19 and 20 is
denied.
3. The parties represented that they are in good faith working on a stipulated protective

13

order. Pending the filing and approval of such a stipulated order, all discovery produced pursuant

14

to the instant order on the motions to compel shall be subject to a protective order that it shall be

15

used solely for purposes of this litigation and that confidential information of members of the

16

plaintiff associations shall not be made a part of the public record.

17
18

4. The court finds an award of expenses is not warranted.
Dated: June 19, 2014

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22

4 arccal.oah

23
24
25
26
27
28
2