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

Filing 212

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

Download PDF
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?