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