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)

Download PDF
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?