ORMOND et al v. ANTHEM, INC. et al

Filing 449

ENTRY ON PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER - For the reasons set forth, Plaintiffs' Objections to the Magistrate Judges Discovery Order (dkt no. 330 ) are DENIED. **SEE ENTRY**. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 7/13/2011. (JD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
MARY ORMOND, et al., On Behalf of
Themselves and All Other Similarly Situated,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
)
vs.
)
ANTHEM, INC. and ANTHEM INSURANCE )
COMPANIES, INC.,
)
)
)
Defendants.

Case No. 1:05-cv-1908-TWP-TAB

ENTRY ON PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ objections to the Magistrate Judge’s prior
discovery orders. The central issue relates to the Magistrate Judge’s denial of Plaintiffs’ request
for the names of the 25 largest grandfathered groups (“GFGs”) from Ohio, Connecticut, and
Kentucky. Plaintiffs argue that the Magistrate Judge’s ruling was in error because it was
premised on a misunderstanding of the Plan of Conversion. That is, the Magistrate Judge
allegedly exaggerated “the extent to which the Plan of Conversion dictates reliance on Anthem’s
books and records in determining the eligibility of a member to receive demutualization
distributions.” (Dkt. 332 at 4). Under Plaintiffs’ theory, Anthem – rather than relying
exclusively on its own books and records – allegedly relied on other sources of information and
manipulated its own records to divert shares to the GFGs. According to Plaintiffs, the
Magistrate Judge’s ruling robs them of the opportunity to gather evidence that goes to the heart
of one of their core allegations – “that Defendants allocated too many shares to the GFGs.” (Dkt.
332 at 5). Along similar lines, Plaintiffs object to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that the Plan of
Conversion “specifies which headcounts to use.” (Dkt. 332 at 13).

In the Court’s view, these issues have effectively been rendered moot. On July 1, 2011,
the Court issued a summary judgment decision in Ormond, which pared down the remaining
issues for trial significantly. As it stands, Plaintiffs’ sole surviving claim is for breach of duty in
connection with the pricing and sizing of the Anthem, Inc. IPO. (Dkt. 446 at 53). In making its
ruling, the Court expressly rejected Plaintiffs’ claims related to a mis-allocation or an overallocation of shares to the GFGs (including theories related to headcount inflation/manipulation).
With the GFGs-related issues jettisoned from the equation, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ request
no longer seeks relevant information.
But even if GFGs issues were still in play, the Court would likely not be inclined to
reverse the Magistrate Judge’s rulings, particularly given the deferential standard of review that
applies to Rule 72(a) motions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (“the Court must “modify or set aside
any part of [the magistrate judge’s] order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.”)
(emphasis added). For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Discovery
Order (Dkt. 330) are DENIED.

SO ORDERED:

07/13/2011

________________________
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

2

Distribution to:
Matthew Thomas Albaugh
BAKER & DANIELS - Indianapolis
[e-mail],[e-mail]
Dennis Paul Barron
[e-mail]
Michael F. Becker
THE BECKER LAW FIRM CO., L.P.A.
[e-mail],[e-mail]
Peter R. Bisio
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
[e-mail],[e-mail]
Todd S Collins
BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
[e-mail]
T. David Copley
KELLER ROHRBACK, L.L.P.
[e-mail],[e-mail]
Edward O'Donnell DeLaney
DELANEY & DELANEY LLC
[e-mail],[e-mail],[e-mail],acouture@delaneyla
w.net,[e-mail]
Kathleen Ann DeLaney
DELANEY & DELANEY LLC
[e-mail],[e-mail],[e-mail],cstake@delan
eylaw.net,[e-mail]
Thomas M. Fisher
INDIANA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
[e-mail],[e-mail]
Craig A. Hoover
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
[e-mail],[e-mail]
Peter R. Kahana
BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
[e-mail]
3

Kevin M. Kimmerling
BAKER & DANIELS - Indianapolis
[e-mail]
Cari C. Laufenberg
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
[e-mail],[e-mail]
Adam K. Levin
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
[e-mail],[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],[e-mail]
Lynn L. Sarko
KELLER ROHRBACK, L.L.P.
[e-mail],[e-mail]
Christopher G. Scanlon
BAKER & DANIELS - Indianapolis
[e-mail],[e-mail]
Paul A. Wolfla
BAKER & DANIELS - Indianapolis
[e-mail],[e-mail]
Eric Hyman Zagrans
[e-mail]

4