ORMOND et al v. ANTHEM, INC. et al

Filing 276

Minute Order for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker: Parties appeared by counsel on May 20, 2010, for a telephonic conference to address pending discovery-related motions. Parties were given an opportunity to be heard on all issues . After considering the parties' briefing and arguments, the Court rules as follows: Defendants' motion to stay expert and damages discovery 255 is denied. Plaintiffs' motion to extend case management deadlines 259 is granted in part. The State of Indiana's motion for leave to file brief as amicus curiae 271 271] is granted, and the amicus brief attached to its motion is deemed filed as of the date of this order (see Order for other details and established deadlines). Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker.(SWM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION ) ) ) ) vs. ) ANTHEM, INC. and ANTHEM INSURANCE ) COMPANIES, INC., ) ) Defendants. MARY E. ORMOND, et al., Plaintiffs,

1:05-cv-1908-SEB-TAB

ORDER ON MAY 20, 2010, TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE Parties appeared by counsel on May 20, 2010, for a telephonic conference to address pending discovery-related motions. Parties were given an opportunity to be heard on all issues.1 After considering the parties' briefing and arguments, the Court rules as follows: 1. Defendants' motion to stay expert and damages discovery [Docket No. 255] is denied. Defendants have not made a sufficient showing to cut off discovery under the three-factor test set out in Centillion Data Sys., LLC v. Convergys Corp., No. 1:04-cv-73-LJM-WTL, 2008 WL 687129 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 10, 2008) (prejudice to non-moving party, simplification of issues, and reduction of litigation burden). 2. Although Defendants' motion to stay is denied, the Court will not permit discovery to proceed without reasonable limits given the pending summary judgment motion and the significant costs associated with the disputed discovery. Each side may take three expert depositions and six fact witness depositions, and Plaintiffs may take a 30(b)(6)

Because the parties were heard on all issues, the Court grants Defendants' request for oral argument on their motion to stay expert and damages discovery pending summary judgment. [Docket No. 274.]

1

deposition. This order imposes no limits on written discovery. 3. Because the Court is allowing some discovery to proceed, Plaintiffs' motion to extend case management deadlines [Docket No. 259] is granted in part. The Court adopts the schedule set out in Plaintiffs' motion, extending each deadline by 30 days to compensate for the time passed since the motion was filed, as follows: a. Any remaining discovery relating to the demutualization database shall by completed by July 9, 2010. Plaintiffs shall receive from Defendants any and all electronic, supplemental, and/or additional written materials by July 2, 2010. Any Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Defendants' designated witness for questions relating to the demutualization database shall be taken no later than July 9, 2010. b. Plaintiffs shall have up to and including July 30, 2010, to complete any supplementation to their expert disclosures and reports. c. Defendants shall have up to and including August 30, 2010, to serve their expert witness disclosures and reports. d. All parties shall complete discovery on expert and damages issues by September 30, 2010. e. f. All parties shall file final witness and exhibit lists by September 30, 2010. All dispositive motions shall be filed by October 30, 2010.

2

g.

The State of Indiana's motion for leave to file brief as amicus curiae [Docket No. 271] is granted, and the amicus brief attached to its motion is deemed filed as of the date of this order.

Dated:

05/21/2010
_______________________________ Tim A. Baker United States Magistrate Judge Southern District of Indiana

3

Copies to: Matthew Thomas Albaugh BAKER & DANIELS - Indianapolis [e-mail] Dennis Paul Barron [e-mail] Michael F. Becker BECKER & MISHKIND CO., L.P.A. [e-mail] Peter R. Bisio HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP [e-mail] Todd S Collins BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. [e-mail] T. David Copley KELLER ROHRBACK, L.L.P. [e-mail] Edward O'Donnell DeLaney DELANEY & DELANEY LLC [e-mail] Kathleen Ann DeLaney DELANEY & DELANEY LLC [e-mail] Thomas M. Fisher INDIANA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL [e-mail] Craig A. Hoover HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP [e-mail] Peter R. Kahana BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. [e-mail] Kevin M. Kimmerling BAKER & DANIELS - Indianapolis [e-mail] Cari C. Laufenberg KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. [e-mail] Adam K. Levin HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP [e-mail] Neil F Mara BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. [e-mail] H. Laddie Montague Jr BERGER & MONTAGUE P.C. [e-mail] Anne Kramer Ricchiuto BAKER & DANIELS - Indianapolis [e-mail] Lynn L. Sarko KELLER ROHRBACK, L.L.P. [e-mail] Christopher G. Scanlon BAKER & DANIELS - Indianapolis [e-mail] Paul A. Wolfla BAKER & DANIELS - Indianapolis [e-mail] Eric Hyman Zagrans [e-mail] 4