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)

Download PDF
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 matthew.albaugh@bakerd.com,cheryl.lewallen@bakerd.com Dennis Paul Barron dennispbarron@aol.com Michael F. Becker THE BECKER LAW FIRM CO., L.P.A. mbecker@beckerlawlpa.com,mfbprivate@hotmail.com Peter R. Bisio HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP peter.bisio@hoganlovells.com,erica.knievel@hoganlovells.com Todd S Collins BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. tcollins@bm.net T. David Copley KELLER ROHRBACK, L.L.P. dcopley@kellerrohrback.com,nstephenson@kellerrohrback.com Edward O'Donnell DeLaney DELANEY & DELANEY LLC ed@delaneylaw.net,kathleen@delaneylaw.net,kari@delaneylaw.net,acouture@delaneyla w.net,jillian@delaneylaw.net Kathleen Ann DeLaney DELANEY & DELANEY LLC kathleen@delaneylaw.net,kari@delaneylaw.net,acouture@delaneylaw.net,cstake@delan eylaw.net,jillian@delaneylaw.net Thomas M. Fisher INDIANA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL tom.fisher@atg.in.gov,julie.stickle@atg.in.gov Craig A. Hoover HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP cahoover@hhlaw.com,rcmandel@hhlaw.com Peter R. Kahana BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. pkahana@bm.net 3 Kevin M. Kimmerling BAKER & DANIELS - Indianapolis kevin.kimmerling@bakerd.com Cari C. Laufenberg KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com,dwilcher@kellerrohrback.com Adam K. Levin HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP aklevin@hhlaw.com,bgcarpenter@hhlaw.com Neil F Mara BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. nmara@bm.net H. Laddie Montague , Jr BERGER & MONTAGUE P.C. hlmontague@bm.net Anne Kramer Ricchiuto BAKER & DANIELS - Indianapolis anne.ricchiuto@bakerd.com,crystal.hansen@bakerd.com Lynn L. Sarko KELLER ROHRBACK, L.L.P. lsarko@kellerrohrback.com,cengle@kellerrohrback.com Christopher G. Scanlon BAKER & DANIELS - Indianapolis chris.scanlon@bakerd.com,crystal.hansen@bakerd.com Paul A. Wolfla BAKER & DANIELS - Indianapolis paul.wolfla@bakerd.com,betsy.smith@bakerd.com Eric Hyman Zagrans eric@zagrans.com 4

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?