Magellan Health Services, Inc. v. CDMI, LLC et al

Filing 84

RULING ON NUMBER OF DEPOSITIONS Signed by Judge Joan G. Margolis on 11/7/2013.(Rodko, B.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
-------------------------------------------------------X
:
MAGELLAN HEALTH SERVICES, INC.
:
:
V.
:
:
CDMI, LLC ET AL.
:
:
-------------------------------------------------------X

3:12 CV 1250 (JBA)

DATE: NOVEMBER 7, 2013

RULING ON NUMBER OF DEPOSITIONS
The factual and procedural history behind this litigation has been set forth in
considerable detail in this Magistrate Judge's previous discovery rulings and orders (Dkts.
##61, 66, 68, 81), familiarity with which is presumed. Under the latest Scheduling Order,
October 9, 2013 (Dkt. #81), all depositions of fact witnesses are to be completed by January
3, 2014, all discovery is to be completed by March 28, 2014, and all dispositive motions are
to be filed by April 18, 2014. On April 16, 2013, Judge Arterton referred the file to this
Magistrate Judge to supervise discovery. (Dkt. #54; see also Dkts. ##53, 80).
On October 30, 2013, defense counsel forwarded a letter to this Magistrate Judge
regarding fact depositions, as to which plaintiff's counsel replied on November 4, 2013; a
telephonic discovery conference was held on November 6, 2013. (Dkts. ##82-83).1 As set
forth in the two letters and during the telephone conference, as of the present, plaintiff
intends to take three or four depositions of defendants or their representatives, and has sent
out subpoenas and Notices of Deposition to fifteen third-parties, which defendants contend
violates the ten deposition limit of FED. R. CIV. P. 30(a)(2)(A)(i), is disruptive to defendants'
1

If any party files an Objection to this discovery ruling, then the two letters will be
docketed on CM/ECF.

business with their customers, and supports defendants' counterclaims against plaintiff. In
his letter, plaintiff's counsel explained that plaintiff does not intend to depose all these third
parties and suggested a sixteen deposition limit; during the telephone conference, he
represented that he is in the process of reviewing the documents produced by the third
parties to date and it is "most likely" that he would take nine to twelve depositions, but
wished to reserve the opportunity to take sixteen depositions in total. Defendants maintain
that there is no reason to exceed the ten deposition limit.
Because third party discovery is apparently crucial to both plaintiff's claims and
defendants' counterclaims, this is an appropriate case in which to permit more than ten
depositions. As indicated at the conclusion of the telephonic discovery conference, each side
is allowed to take no more than twelve depositions, without prejudice to either side seeking
an additional four depositions for good cause shown.
This is not a Recommended Ruling, but a ruling on a non-dispositive motion, the
standard of review of which is specified in 28 U.S.C. § 636; FED. R. CIV. P. 6(a), 6(e) & 72;
and Rule 72.2 of the Local Rules for United States Magistrate Judges. As such, it is an order
of the Court unless reversed or modified by the District Judge upon timely made objection.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(written objections to ruling must be filed within
fourteen calendar days after service of same); FED. R. CIV. P. 6(a), 6(e) & 72; Rule
72.2 of the Local Rules for United States Magistrate Judges, United States District Court for
the District of Connecticut; Small v. Secretary, H&HS, 892 F.2d. 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989)(failure
to file timely objection to Magistrate Judge’s recommended ruling may preclude further
appeal to Second Circuit).2

2

If either counsel believes that a continued settlement conference, either before the Special
Master (see Dkts. ##49, 71, 78) or this Magistrate Judge, would be productive, he should contact

2

Dated at New Haven, Connecticut, this 7th day of November, 2013.

/s/ Joan G. Margolis, USMJ
Joan Glazer Margolis
United States Magistrate Judge

Chambers accordingly.

3