JORLING v. ANTHEM, INC. et al

Filing 200

ENTRY ON PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER - Plaintiffs' Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Discovery Order (Dkt. 93 ) are DENIED. If, however, the GFGs issues are still in play following the Court's summary judgment ruling, the Plaintiffs will be permitted to renew this motion within 30 days of the date of the ruling. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 7/20/2011. (JD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
JEFFREY D. JORLING, On Behalf of Himself )
)
and All Others Similarly Situated
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
)
vs.
)
ANTHEM, INC. and ANTHEM INSURANCE )
COMPANIES, INC.,
)
)
)
Defendants.

Case No. 1:09-cv-00798-TWP-TAB

ENTRY ON PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs’ objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
prior discovery orders (Dkt. 93). “The district court?s review of any discovery-related decisions
made by the magistrate judge is governed by Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd, 126 F.3d 926, 943 (7th Cir. 1997).

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. 94 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. Plaintiff’s argue that the Magistrate Judge’s ruling robs
Plaintiffs 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. 94 at 5). Along
similar lines, Plaintiffs object to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that the Plan of Conversion
“specifies which headcounts to use.” (Dkt. 94 at 13).
On July 1, 2011, the Court issued a summary judgment decision in Ormond (1:05-cv01908-TWP-TAB)– Jorling’s companion case – which pared down the remaining issues for trial
in that case. Significantly, the Court rejected Plaintiffs’ claims related to a mis-allocation or an
over-allocation of shares to the GFGs (including theories related to headcount
inflation/manipulation). In effect, the summary judgment ruling mooted this exact same motion
in Ormond.
Unlike Ormond, however, a Motion for Summary Judgment remains pending in this case
and is set for Oral Argument on September 9, 2011, therefore technically, the present motion is
not moot. That said, in the Court’s view, the grandfathered groups issues in Ormond and Jorling
are virtually indistinguishable.1 Without preordaining how the Court will rule on the pending
motion for summary judgment in this case, it stands to reason that Plaintiffs’ GFGs argument
could possibly meet a similar fate. If the GFGs-related issue is jettisoned from the equation, then
Plaintiffs’ request no longer seeks relevant information. Therefore, at this time, Plaintiffs’
Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Discovery Order (Dkt. 93) are DENIED.
If, however, the GFGs issues are still in play following the Court’s summary judgment
ruling, the Plaintiffs will be permitted to renew this motion within 30 days of the date of the
ruling.

1

This is evidenced by the fact that the parties used the exact same briefs in both Ormond
and Jorling.
2

SO ORDERED: 07/20/2011

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

Copies to:

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

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

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

Michael F. Becker
THE BECKER LAW FIRM CO., L.P.A.
[e-mail]

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

Peter R. Bisio
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
[e-mail]

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

Todd S Collins
BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
[e-mail]

Cari C. Laufenberg
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
[e-mail]

T. David Copley
KELLER ROHRBACK, L.L.P.
[e-mail]

Adam K. Levin
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
[e-mail]

Edward O'Donnell DeLaney
DELANEY & DELANEY LLC
[e-mail]

Neil F Mara
BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
[e-mail]

Kathleen Ann DeLaney
DELANEY & DELANEY LLC
[e-mail]

H. Laddie Montague Jr
BERGER & MONTAGUE P.C.
[e-mail]

3

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