United States of America et al v. North East Medical Services
Filing
138
ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING (133 in case 4:10-cv-01904-CW) MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE ORDER OF MAGISTRATE. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/4/2014)
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ex rel. LOI
TRINH and ED TA-CHIANG HSU,
5
Plaintiffs,
6
v.
7
NORTHEAST MEDICAL SERVICES, INC.,
No. C 10-1904 CW
ORDER DENYING
MOTION FOR RELIEF
FROM NONDISPOSITIVE ORDER
OF MAGISTRATE
JUDGE (Docket No.
133)
8
Defendant.
9
________________________________/
10
NORTH EAST MEDICAL SERVICES,
INC.,
No. C 10-2433 CW
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
11
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
14
CAL. DEP’T HEALTH CARE SERVICES,
et al.,
15
Defendants.
________________________________/
16
NORTHEAST MEDICAL SERVICES, INC.,
No. C 12-2895 CW
17
Plaintiff,
18
v.
19
20
CAL. DEP’T HEALTH CARE SERVICES,
et al.,
21
Defendants.
________________________________/
22
LA CLINICA DE LA RAZA, INC.,
23
Plaintiff,
24
v.
25
26
27
CAL. DEP’T HEALTH CARE SERVICES,
et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/
28
No. C 10-4605 CW
1
On January 23, 2014, Northeast Medical Services, Inc. (NEMS)
2
filed a motion for relief from Magistrate Judge Spero’s January 9,
3
2014 discovery order.
4
joint discovery letter-brief submitted to Magistrate Judge Spero
5
on December 10, 2013, the Court denies NEMS’s motion.
6
After reviewing the discovery order and the
First, Magistrate Judge Spero’s decision to overrule NEMS’s
7
general objections to the Governments’ discovery motions is
8
supported by the local rules and, therefore, not contrary to law.
9
Civil Local Rule 37-3 plainly allows parties to file motions to
compel up to seven days after the close of discovery.
11
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
NEMS cites from outside of this district are inapposite.
12
The cases
Second, Magistrate Judge Spero’s decision to order NEMS to
13
submit to a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition is not clearly erroneous or
14
contrary to law.
15
on all of the subjects outlined in the Governments’ deposition
16
notice and these subjects are relevant to the Governments’ case.
17
Producing a witness for this deposition will not be unduly
18
burdensome for NEMS, especially now that summary judgment briefing
19
has concluded.
NEMS has yet to produce a witness to be deposed
20
Finally, Magistrate Judge Spero’s decision to quash NEMS’s
21
requests to depose Cindy Mann and Jim McCrae -- both high-level
22
federal officials with limited knowledge of the specific facts at
23
issue in this case -- is amply supported by law.
24
cited numerous authorities in the joint letter-brief for the
25
proposition that “top executive department officials should not,
26
absent extraordinary circumstances, be called to testify regarding
27
their reasons for taking official actions.”
28
2
The Governments
Simplex Time Recorder
1
Co. v. Secretary of Labor, 766 F.2d 575, 586 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
2
NEMS has not cited even a single case to counter that proposition.
3
CONCLUSION
4
For the reasons set forth above, NEMS’s motion for relief
5
from Magistrate Judge Spero’s discovery order (Docket No. 133 in
6
Case No. 10-1904) is DENIED.
7
to file a response brief (Docket No. 137 in Case No. 10-1904) is
8
DENIED as moot.
9
The Governments’ request for leave
IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
11
Dated:
2/4/2014
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?