K W et al v. Armstrong et al
Filing
362
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the motion to extend (docket no. 354 ) and the amended motion to extend (docket no. 356 ) are DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that defendants shall respond to the pending motion to enforce (docket no. 353 ) on or before February 20, 2020. The final reply brief by plaintiffs shall be due in accordance with Local Rules.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that a hearing shall be held on the motion to enforce (docket no. 353 ) on March 19, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. in the Federal Courthouse in Boise Idaho. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (ckh)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
K.W., by his next friend D.W., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 1:12-cv-00022-BLW
(lead case)
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER
v.
RICHARD ARMSTRONG, in his official
capacity as Director of the Idaho
Department of Health and Welfare; PAUL
LEARY, in his official capacity as
Medicaid Administrator of the Idaho
Department of Health and Welfare; and the
IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND WELFARE, a department of the
State of Idaho,
Defendants.
TOBY SCHULTZ, et al.
Plaintiffs,
v.
RICHARD ARMSTRONG, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:12-CV-58-BLW
INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is motion for extension of time and an amended motion for
extension of time, both filed by defendants. The Court also has a pending motion to
enforce settlement agreement filed by plaintiffs that the defendants have not responded to
pending resolution of their motions for extension of time. For the reasons explained
below, the Court will deny the motions for extension and require defendants to file a
Memorandum Decision & Order – page 1
response brief to the motion to enforce within twenty (20) days from the date of this
decision. The Court will also set a hearing date on the motion to enforce in the Order
section of this decision.
ANALYSIS
In their motions, defendants request an order (1) allowing them to take limited
discovery into the basis for the motion to enforce, including deposing the class
representatives (for no more than 2 hours); (2) extend the time within which defendants
must respond to the motion to enforce to allow for limited discovery; and (3) requiring
class counsel to clarify who the class representatives in this case are.
This case was originally filed in 2012. Two years have passed since the class
action settlement. The Court expresses no opinion on the motion to enforce – and the
arguments concerning whether additional time is needed to construct the budget tool –
other than to say that there must be some urgency in the resolution of that motion. The
class members are well-known and the discovery sought by defendants does not, at this
time, appear important enough to delay any further the resolution of the motion to
enforce.
For all of these reasons, the Court will deny the motions to extent time and direct
defendants to respond to the motion to enforce within twenty (20) days from the date of
this decision.
ORDER
In accordance with the Memorandum Decision set forth above,
Memorandum Decision & Order – page 2
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the motion to extend
(docket no. 354) and the amended motion to extend (docket no. 356) are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that defendants shall respond to the pending motion
to enforce (docket no. 353) on or before February 20, 2020. The final reply brief by
plaintiffs shall be due in accordance with Local Rules.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that a hearing shall be held on the motion to enforce
(docket no. 353) on March 19, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. in the Federal Courthouse in Boise
Idaho.
DATED: January 31, 2020
_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court
Memorandum Decision & Order – page 3
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?