United States of America Ex Rel. Saint Joseph's Hospital, Inc. and Candler Hospital, Inc. et al v. United Distributors, Inc. et al

Filing 80

ORDER denying 61 Motion to Stay Discovery and certain pretrial deadlines. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 12/22/2011. (lmm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ex rel. SAINT JOSEPH’S
HOSPITAL, INC., and CANDLER
HOSPITAL, INC.,

)
)
)
)
)

and
SAINT JOSEPH’S HOSPITAL, INC.,
and CANDLER HOSPITAL, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. CV410-096

UNITED DISTRIBUTORS, INC.,
UNITED DISTRIBUTORS INC.
EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFIT
PLAN, COMMERCE BENEFITS
GROUP AGENY, INC. d/b/a
COMMERCE BENEFITS GROUP,
INC., THOMAS J. PATTON, and
LINNIE P. REAVES,
Defendants.

ORDER
Defendants move to stay discovery and pretrial deadlines pending
resolution of their motions to dismiss (docs. 38, 39, 52, & 53) in this False Claims
Act and ERISA case. (Docs. 61, 75.) Plaintiffs oppose the stay, asserting that the
motions to dismiss are unlikely to succeed. (Doc. 66, 68.) Having looked over
the motions, the Court agrees with plaintiffs; most of their claims appear likely to
survive defendants’ dismissal motions. Arriaga-Zacarias v. Lewis Taylor Farms,

Inc., 2008 WL 4544470 at *2 (M.D. Ga. Oct. 10, 2008) (“it may be helpful for the
court to take a ‘preliminary peek’ at the merits of the dispositive motion to assess
the likelihood that such motion will be granted”). Defendants’ reliance upon
Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 1997), is misplaced.
This is not a case involving an “especially dubious” claim or impermissible
“shotgun” pleadings. Id. at 1368. Further, plaintiffs may be prejudiced by a stay
of discovery. See Feldman v. Flood, 176 F.R.D. 651, 652 (M.D. Fla. 1997) (“In
deciding whether to stay discovery pending resolution of a pending motion, the
Court inevitably must balance the harm produced by a delay in discovery against
the possibility that the motion will be granted and entirely eliminate the need for
such discovery.”). It has been more than three years since the events underlying
plaintiffs’ claims occurred (doc. 1 at 4), so memories have likely already begun to
fade. Accordingly, defendants’ motions to stay discovery and certain pretrial
deadlines are DENIED.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) and the Local Rules of
this Court, and after considering the motion to stay and the parties' Rule 26(f)
report, the Court imposes the following deadlines in the above styled case:
COMMENCEMENT OF DISCOVERY

01/02/2012

LAST DAY TO FURNISH EXPERT WITNESS REPORT
by PLAINTIFF

03/01/2012

2

LAST DAY TO FURNISH EXPERT WITNESS REPORT
by DEFENDANT
JOINT STATUS REPORT DUE
CLOSE OF DISCOVERY

04/02/2012
05/01/2012

06/20/2012

LAST DAY FOR FILING CIVIL MOTIONS

EXCLUDING MOTIONS IN LIMINE

07/20/2012

Motions in limine shall be filed no later than 5 days prior to the pre-trial
conference. The parties are further advised that all motions, other than summary
judgment motions and motions to dismiss, shall be accompanied with a proposed
order.
SO ORDERED this 22nd day of December, 2011.

UNiTED ST[ES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

3