United States Of America et al v. SouthernCare, Inc.

Filing 122

ORDER that the Court vacates the July 1, 2015 Order and substitutes this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 7/7/15. (bcw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and
STATE OF GEORGIA ex rel.
CHAD WILLIS,

)

)

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

V.

)

Case No. CV410-124

)

SOUTHERNCARE, INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

ORDER
Before the Court is the parties' joint motion to extend the discovery
deadlines in this qui tam action, which has been pending in this Court for
over 5 years. Doc. 1 (complaint filed under seal May 18, 2010). The Court
improvidently entered the parties' proposed order granting that motion on
July 1, 2015. Doc. 121. It now vacates that Order and substitutes the
following.
On December 5, 2014, the Court denied defendant's motion to stay
discovery, doc. 101, and shortly thereafter entered a scheduling order that
granted the parties' joint request for 9 months of discovery (calculated from
the time the Court denied the motion to stay). Doc. 102 (entered December
22, 2014).

Some 6 months into the discovery period, the parties now jointly
move for an additional 9 months of discovery, beyond the September 15,
2015 cut-off date specified in the Court's prior scheduling order. Doc. 113.
They represent that this is a "complex case" involving a lot of documents,
including medical records for "potentially" thousands of patients. Id. at 2.
So far, however, apparently only "one deposition" has been taken. Id. The
parties do not explain why they so profoundly underestimated the amount
of time it would take to complete discovery when they prepared their initial
Rule 26(f) report.
The Court appreciates that this is an exceptional case and that
additional time for discovery is needed given the volume of the discovery
and its sensitive nature. But the Court is not convinced that 18 months of
steady, unremitting discovery is needed in this case. The parties certainly
have not demonstrated that it is. Prolonged discovery is expensive, and it
imposes costs not only upon the parties but also upon the judiciary, and the
public that funds its operations. At some point, this litigation needs to
come to an end, for otherwise the Court will fail in its duty of ensuring "the
just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of [the] action." Federal Rule

2

of Civil Procedure 1. Accordingly, the Court will GRANT the parties some
additional time but not as much as they are requesting.
The following deadlines are imposed.
LAST DAY TO FURNISH EXPERT WITNESS REPORT
February 23, 2016
by PLAINTIFF
LAST DAY TO FURNISH EXPERT WITNESS REPORT
by DEFENDANT
March 25, 2016
JOINT STATUS REPORT DUE

April 3, 2016

CLOSE OF DISCOVERY

April 24, 2016

LAST DAY FOR FILING CIVIL MOTIONS,
INCLUDING DAUBERT MOTIONS but
EXCLUDING MOTIONS IN LIMINE
[30 DAYS AFTER CLOSE OF DISCOVERY] May

25, 2016

These are firm deadlines, and no further extensions of discovery
will be allowed in this case. The parties shall quote the foregoing
sentence in the first paragraph of any motion they file seeking such an
extension.

SO ORDERED this -7

7YA

of July, 2015.

'

UNITED ATMAGISTRATE JUIDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA