ORMOND et al v. ANTHEM, INC. et al

Filing 470

ENTRY AND ORDER REGARDING CONFERENCE HELD ON AUGUST 24, 2011 - This matter is before the Court for a conference to discuss pending matters. Plaintiffs and Defendants appear by counsel. Defendants' corresponding Motion for Oral Arguments (Dkt. [4 59]) is DENIED. Plaintiffs' Motion to Exchange Existing Trial Settings (Dkt. 448 ) is DENIED. Plaintiffs' Motion to Narrow the Class Definition (Dkt. 387 ) is DENIED AS MOOT. This and other jury and courtroom related issues will be disc ussed in much greater detail at the final pretrial conference, which is scheduled for May 30, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. To reiterate, this matter remains set for trial by jury on June 18, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. (Court Reporter Fred Pratt.)(JD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
MARY E. ORMOND, et al.,
On Behalf of Themselves and
All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
ANTHEM INC., et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 1:05-cv-01908-TWP-TAB

ENTRY AND ORDER REGARDING CONFERENCE
HELD ON AUGUST 24, 2011
This matter is before the Court for a conference to discuss pending matters. Plaintiffs
appear by counsel, Dennis Paul Barron, Ed DeLaney, Eric Zagrans, Kathleen DeLaney, Peter R.
Kahana, H. Laddie Montague, and Lynn L. Sarko. Defendants appear by counsel, Christopher
G. Scanlon, Craig A. Hoover, Paul A. Wolfla, and Peter R. Bisio. Court Reporter is Fred Pratt.
The following items were discussed and the following rulings are made:
1. The Court now finds that oral arguments on Defendants’ Motion for Certificate of
Appealability are not necessary. Therefore, Defendants’ corresponding Motion for Oral
Arguments (Dkt. 459) is DENIED. The Court will soon be ready to take up Defendants’ Motion
for Certificate of Appealability. Tentatively, the Court anticipates ruling on this Motion by mid
to late September.
2.

In light of today’s discussion, the Court has determined that it would be unnecessarily

burdensome to both the parties and the Court to exchange the Jorling trial date (December 5,
2011) with the Ormond trial date (June 18, 2012). Moreover, if the Court were to exchange the
trial dates, it would foreclose the possibility of consolidating these matters for trial. Plaintiffs’
Motion to Exchange Existing Trial Settings (Dkt. 448) is therefore DENIED. As it stands, each
case will keep its respective trial setting. That said, both the parties and the Court agree that

Jorling will not be ready for trial in December 2011. At their earliest convenience, the parties
should confer and file a motion and proposed order continuing the Jorling trial date.
3. The parties and the Court further discussed the possibility of consolidating Ormond and
Jorling for trial. At this time, however, such a determination is premature, as class certification
and summary judgment motions remain pending in Jorling. This issue will be discussed further
in due course.
4.

The Court appreciates that there is perhaps an unbridgeable chasm in the parties’

respective settlement positions. But, as always, the parties are encouraged to reevaluate their
positions and consider the benefits of settlement, which eliminates the risk, uncertainty, and
rigors of a trial of this magnitude. At this time, however, the Court will not order mediation or
schedule a settlement conference with the Magistrate Judge.
5. The parties are in agreement that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Narrow the Class Definition (Dkt.
387) can be DENIED as moot.
6.

Per Plaintiffs’ request, special jury questionnaires will be used in this matter. This and

other jury and courtroom related issues will be discussed in much greater detail at the final
pretrial conference, which is scheduled for May 30, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. To reiterate, this matter
remains set for trial by jury on June 18, 2012 at 9:00 a.m.

08/24/2011
Date: _______________

Distribution attached.

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

Distribution to:

Matthew Thomas Albaugh
BAKER & DANIELS - Indianapolis
[e-mail]

Peter R. Kahana
BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
[e-mail]

Dennis Paul Barron
[e-mail]

Kevin M. Kimmerling
BAKER & DANIELS - Indianapolis
[e-mail]

Michael F. Becker
THE BECKER LAW FIRM 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]

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]

Thomas M. Fisher
INDIANA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL
[e-mail]

Christopher G. Scanlon
BAKER & DANIELS - Indianapolis
[e-mail]

Craig A. Hoover
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
[e-mail]

Paul A. Wolfla
BAKER & DANIELS - Indianapolis
[e-mail]
Eric Hyman Zagrans
[e-mail]