BOWMAN et al v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION et al

Filing 147

Minute Order for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker: Pretrial Conference held on 2/7/2012. Court heard argument on case management and discovery-related issues and motions. At the heart of the argument was Plaintiffs' motion to extend Case Management Plan deadlines [Docket No. 135], which seeks to extend all CMP deadlines by 90 days. Plaintiffs' motion to extend CMP deadlines 135 is granted, and all CMP deadlines are enlarged by 90 days (see Order for additional information). Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker.(SWM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
) CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00593-RLY-TAB
v.
)
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES )
CORPORATION, ACS HUMAN SERVICES, )
LLC, and PHOENIX DATA CORPORATION, )
)
ARBOR E&T, LLC,
)
)
Defendants.
JAMES BOWMAN
and MELISSA GIBSON,

ORDER ON FEBRUARY 7, 2012, PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
The parties appeared by counsel on February 7, 2012, for a pretrial conference and the
Court heard argument on case management and discovery-related issues and motions. At the
heart of the argument was Plaintiffs’ motion to extend Case Management Plan deadlines [Docket
No. 135], which seeks to extend all CMP deadlines by 90 days. Defendant ACS does not object
to a “reasonable” extension of CMP deadlines [Docket No. 138], but the remaining Defendants
argue that only minimal CMP modifications are appropriate. [Docket No. 137.]
The pretrial conference revealed that ACS has not fully responded to Plaintiffs’
discovery. This is due, it appears, primarily to the fact that ACS’s discovery responses must first
be vetted through FSSA. This process is occurring in stages, and at the time of the conference
counsel represented that Phase 1 of three phases was approximately 80% completed. The
discovery process is expected to produce well in excess of one million pages of discovery

responses. Plaintiffs’ counsel also stated that Plaintiffs still are awaiting a privilege log from
IBM, emphasizing to the Court the importance of a privilege log.
Based upon the foregoing, the Court reluctantly concludes that the enlargements to the
CMP requested by the Plaintiffs are necessary to the orderly management of this action, even
though it necessarily involves some delay. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to extend CMP
deadlines [Docket No. 135] is granted, and all CMP deadlines are enlarged by 90 days.
On a related note, Defendant Phoenix Data Corporation filed a motion to enlarge the
deadline to respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests to March 5, 2012. That motion is granted.
However, in that motion Phoenix’s counsel represented to the Court, “Counsel has been unable
to reach counsel for the Plaintiffs...” with respect to whether Plaintiffs would object to Phoenix’s
motion. At the pretrial, however, Plaintiffs’ counsel orally represented to the Court that
Phoenix’s counsel made no attempt to contact Plaintiffs’ counsel regarding this motion.
Obviously, both of these representations cannot be accurate, and the Court is concerned about
what appear to be inaccurate representations—either in Phoenix’s motion or in Plaintiffs’
counsel’s oral representation at the conference. Counsel for Phoenix and the Plaintiffs shall file
a statement (or separate statements, if necessary) by March 2, 2012, explaining this discrepancy.
Finally, the conference also addressed IBM’s request for certain discovery information
from Plaintiffs. First, IBM requested a privilege log. Given Plaintiffs’ counsel’s prior
representation (noted above) concerning the importance of a privilege log, Plaintiffs cannot
seriously argue that they should be excused from the sometimes burdensome requirement of
providing a privilege log. Accordingly, Plaintiffs shall provide the requested privilege log by
March 9, 2012. Also by this date, Plaintiffs shall provide all additional information available

2

regarding the identities of the potential class members. Also by March 9 Plaintiffs shall produce
all medical/damages information regarding the Plaintiffs that the Defendants have requested.
Finally, Defendants shall be permitted until April 9, 2012, to conduct discovery regarding the
class members and their claims.
Dated: 02/23/2012
_______________________________
Tim A. Baker
United States Magistrate Judge
Southern District of Indiana

3

Copies to:
Kevin W. Betz
BETZ & BLEVINS
[e-mail]

Jason L. Fulk
HOOVER HULL LLP
[e-mail]

Sandra L. Blevins
BETZ & ASSOCIATES
[e-mail]

Melanie E. Harris
ICE MILLER LLP
[e-mail]

Craig L. Briskin
MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC
[e-mail]

Thomas J. Henderson
HENDERSON LAW FIRM PLLC
[e-mail]

Jenny R. Buchheit
ICE MILLER LLP
[e-mail]

Zachary D. Holmstead
KIRKLAND & ELLIS
[e-mail]

Daniel K. Burke
HOOVER HULL LLP
[e-mail]

Anna May Howard
SEVERNS & STINSON LAW FIRM
[e-mail]

Aaron D. Charfoos
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
[e-mail]

Andrew W. Hull
HOOVER HULL LLP
[e-mail]

Adam Clay
INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
[e-mail]

John F. Ittenbach
ITTENBACH JOHNSON TRETTIN &
KOELLER
[e-mail]

John B. Drummy
KIGHTLINGER & GRAY
[e-mail]

Robert M. Kelso
KIGHTLINGER & GRAY
[e-mail]

Benjamin C. Ellis
BETZ & BLEVINS
[e-mail]

Robert M. Koeller
ITTENBACH JOHNSON TRETTIN &
KOELLER
[e-mail]

Wendy Netter Epstein
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
[e-mail]

Laurie E. Martin
HOOVER HULL LLP
[e-mail]

4

Steven D. McCormick
KIRLAND & ELLIS LLP
[e-mail]

Judith S. Okenfuss
ICE MILLER LLP
[e-mail]
Martin L. Roth
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
[e-mail]
Scott Richard Severns
SEVERNS & ASSOCIATES
[e-mail]
Anne M. Sidrys
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
[e-mail]
Steven A. Skalet
MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC
[e-mail]
Diana M. Watral
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
[e-mail]
L. Alan Whaley
ICE MILLER LLP
[e-mail]
Michael Wroblewski
KIGHTLINGER & GRAY
[e-mail]
Michael A. Wukmer
ICE MILLER LLP
[e-mail]

5