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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?