ORMOND et al v. ANTHEM, INC. et al

Filing 548

ENTRY on Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Leave to File Consolidated Expert Testimony Response Brief and Exceed Page Limit for Single Response Brief - Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Leave to File Consolidated Expert Testimony Response Brief and Exceed Page Limit for Single Response Brief (Dkt. 544 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 5/1/2012. (TRG)

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 ON PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
CONSOLIDATED EXPERT TESTIMONY RESPONSE BRIEF AND EXCEED PAGE
LIMIT FOR SINGLE RESPONSE BRIEF
On April 19, 2012, Defendants filed multiple motions seeking to exclude the testimony of
Plaintiffs’ expert witnesses on various grounds. Invariably, some of these motions cover similar
subject matter. In response, Plaintiffs have asked for leave to file a single, consolidated response
brief in opposition to 8 of Defendants’ motions. Plaintiffs have agreed to limit this response to 90
pages. In Plaintiffs’ view, “this approach will allow for less redundancy and more clarity, and it
will relieve the Court and the parties of a significant quantity of unnecessary briefing.” (Dkt. 544
at 2).
This request is certainly well-taken. However, upon closer review, it appears that each of
Defendants’ motions is unique and sets forth independent arguments. Moreover, it appears that,
where possible, Defendants have already consolidated their motions. Given the myriad issues at
play, the Court finds that separate responses to each motion would work best to facilitate
organized and focused rulings. Although this may add a few extra pages for the Court to read
(and Plaintiffs to write), the Court believes that the benefits to this approach will outweigh the
costs. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Leave to File Consolidated Expert Testimony
Response Brief and Exceed Page Limit for Single Response Brief (Dkt. 544) is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

05/01/2012

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

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

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

Dennis Paul Barron
[e-mail]

Cari C. Laufenberg
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
[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]
Craig A. Hoover
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
[e-mail]
Peter R. Kahana
BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
[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]