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
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?