Cave Consulting Group, Inc. v. Truven Health Analytics Inc.

Filing 212

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY 207 . (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 4/27/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CAVE CONSULTING GROUP, INC.,

8

Plaintiff,

9

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 207

10

TRUVEN HEALTH ANALYTICS INC.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 15-cv-02177-SI

Defendant.

12
13

The parties have submitted a joint letter brief regarding a discovery dispute. Plaintiff

14

wishes to take certain third party discovery after the close of fact discovery (April 28, 2017).

15

Defendant opposes this request, arguing that plaintiff has not been diligent in seeking and

16

completing the discovery at issue, while plaintiff asserts that it has been diligent and that

17

defendant and the third parties have been obstructing plaintiff’s discovery.

18

The Court concludes that plaintiff has demonstrated good cause to complete the third party

19

discovery with respect to Highmark and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama (“BCBS-AL”),

20

but not with respect to Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas (“BCBS-TX”) or Blue Cross and Blue

21

Shield of Illinois (“BCBS-IL”). Plaintiff issued subpoenas to Highmark and BCBS-AL in early

22

January, has engaged in meet and confers with respect to document requests and taken some

23

depositions (Highmark), and is the process of receiving additional documents and scheduling

24

depositions for Highmark and BCBS-AL that should occur very soon. Under those circumstances,

25

the Court finds it is appropriate that plaintiff be permitted to conclude that limited discovery after

26

the close of fact discovery.

27

However, the Court finds that plaintiff has not acted diligently in seeking discovery from

28

BCBS-TX and BCBS-IL. Plaintiff did not issue subpoenas to those entities until April 19 and 20.

1

Plaintiff states that the subpoenas sought compliance by April 28, and that Rule 45 contemplates

2

circumstances where the response time may be short. Regardless, it was foreseeable that it would

3

take longer than 8 or 9 days for BCBS-TX and BCBS-IL to respond to document requests and

4

produce individuals for deposition on a range of topics. As defendant notes, the fact discovery

5

deadline has been extended twice, in part due to plaintiff’s amendment of the complaint. Plaintiff

6

should have issued the third party subpoenas in a sufficient time frame such that the discovery

7

could be completed by the current deadline.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Dated: April 27, 2017

______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2