SACRED HEART HEALTH SYSTEMS INC ET AL v. HUMANA MILITARY HEALTHCARE SERVICES INC
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - It is therefore recommended that the Courts Discovery and Pretrial Plan be amended as set forth above (see Order image). It is also respectfully suggested that the Court act on this Report and Recommend ation without waiting the normal twenty-one (21) days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(b)(2)(D). The parties have authorized me to advise the Court that no objections will be filed to this Report and Recommendation. Signed by SPECIAL MASTER ROBERT P. MURRIAN on December 8, 2011. (pmc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
SACRED HEART HEALTH SYSTEM,
INC., et al.,
CASE NO.: 3:07CV00062/MCR/EMT
HUMANA MILITARY HEALTHCARE
SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation,
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pursuant to the Court’s Order on Discovery and Pretrial Plan filed January 31,
2011, the undersigned may issue a report and recommendation regarding altering
the deadlines set forth in that Order. [Doc. 376, ¶3]. A telephonic hearing was
conducted on December 7, 2011 and the proceedings were taken down by a court
reporter. J. Nixon Daniel, III, Esq., John F. Windham, Esq. and Russell F. Van Sickle,
Esq. participated for Plaintiffs and K. Lee Blalack, Esq., Benjamin Bradshaw, Esq. and
Scott Edson, Esq. participated for Humana Military Healthcare Services, Inc.
After hearing the arguments of counsel and after considering their written
submissions, the undersigned finds that good cause has been shown to modify the
Court’s Order on Discovery and Pretrial Plan. [“Discovery and Pretrial Plan”].
Plaintiffs requested an “emergency” hearing by email dated December 6, 2011
in regard to 108 depositions noticed by Humana Military for the period December 15
through 22, 2011. The depositions were noticed for multiple states in the Southeast
and as far away as California and Nevada.
The parties are operating under the
constraint that fact discovery must be concluded by January 27, 2011. Discovery and
Pretrial Plan [Doc. 376 at ¶5.H].
If the depositions go forward as noticed, the deposing attorneys and witnesses
likely will not have the discovery materials in hand which are necessary to conduct a
full and complete examination of the witnesses. This situation can be alleviated if
the Court modifies its Discovery and Pretrial Plan as follows:
Fact discovery shall conclude on March 2, 2012
(the current deadline is January 27, 2012).
Motions to Compel shall be filed not later than
March 5, 2012 (the current deadline is December 28,
Expert disclosures shall be disclosed by April 13,
2012 (the current deadline is March 15, 2012).
Rebuttal expert reports shall be disclosed by May
14, 2012 (the current deadline is April 16, 2012).
Expert depositions shall be taken by June 1, 2012
(the current deadline is May 15, 2012).
Daubert and/or dispositive motions shall be filed
not later than June 15, 2012 (the current deadline is May
Responses to Daubert and/or dispositive motions
shall be filed not later than June 29, 2012 (the current
deadline is June 14, 2012) and any reply memoranda by
July 6, 2012 (current deadline – June 21, 2012).
The Court’s reserved hearing date of July 30, 2012
through August 1, 2012, would not change under the
parties’ joint proposal.
A. The parties meet and confer for a trial plan and
trial schedule would take place on May 4, 2012 (the
current deadline is April 16, 2012).
The parties’ shall submit proposed trial
plans and schedules to the Special Master not later than
May 18, 2012 (the current deadline is April 30, 2012).
The in-person meeting with the Special
Master shall take place by June 8, 2012 (the current
deadline is May 21, 2012).
The Special Master’s proposed trial plan and
trial schedule to the Court shall be submitted not later
than June 29, 2012 (the current deadline is June 11,
The parties’ joint proposal does not suggest a change to the October 2012
The parties have agreed to these modifications and I find that good cause has
been shown for making such modifications because: (1) the necessary discovery
likely will be available for use at the time the depositions in question are taken, (2) if
the depositions are taken without such information available, the deponents likely
cannot be fully examined and there may be calls to retake depositions, (3) the
modification of the Court’s Discovery and Pretrial Plan will allow for a more orderly,
less burdensome discovery process and (4) the Court’s hearing dates and trial
calendar will not be affected.1
I will handle the issue of the 108 noticed, non-party December depositions in a separate Order. If the relief
requested herein is granted, I believe that the parties and the undersigned will have a much better chance to
complete discovery and trial preparation in an orderly and efficient manner.
It is therefore recommended that the Court’s Discovery and Pretrial Plan be
amended as set forth above. It is also respectfully suggested that the Court act on
this Report and Recommendation without waiting the normal twenty-one (21) days.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(b)(2)(D). The parties have authorized me to advise the Court that
no objections will be filed to this Report and Recommendation.
Time is of the
essence, the twenty-one (21) day wait is not necessary and the interests of justice
will be better served if the Court acts without waiting the normal 21 days.
Respectfully submitted this 8th day of December, 2011.
/s/ ROBERT P. MURRAIN
Robert P. Murrian, Special Master
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 8th day of December, 2011, a copy of the foregoing
Report and Recommendation was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by
operation of the Court’s electronic filing system to all parties indicated on the electronic filing
receipt. All other parties will be served by regular U.S. Mail. Parties may access this filing
through the Court’s electronic filing system.
/s/ ROBERT P. MURRIAN
Robert P. Murrian, Special Master
Reeves, Herbert & Murrian, P.A.
2607 Kingston Pike, Suite 130
Knoxville, Tennessee 37919
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?