ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS CORP. et al v. BINSON'S HOSPITAL SUPPLIES, INC. et al

Filing 54

ORDER re Plaintiff's 21 Motion for Expedited Discovery - Roche's Motion for Expedited Discovery is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (SEE ORDER) Signed by Judge Larry J. McKinney on 5/11/2017. (JKS) Modified on 5/11/2017 (JKS).

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS CORP., and ROCHE DIABETES CARE, INC., ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, vs. BINSON’S HOSPITAL SUPPLIES, INC., et al. Defendants. No. 1:17-cv-00949-LJM-DML ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’, Roche Diagnostics Corp. and Roche Diabetes, Inc. (collectively “Roche”), Motion for Expedited Discovery. Dkt. 21. Roche requests expedited non-party discovery of the Defendants Pharmacy John Does 1-50 (“Pharmacies”) prior to the conference between the parties required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) (“Rule 26(f)”). Roche alleges in its Complaint that the unknown Pharmacies, in conjunction with the Defendants, engaged in a fraudulent scheme to purchase Roche’s blood glucose test strips at a discount and sell them at a higher rate. See generally Dkt. 12. Roche contends that “Defendants Pharmacy John Does 1-50 are retail pharmacies, their principals, and their employees that are involved in the conspiracy to commit insurance fraud … but whose identities are presently unknown.” Dkt. 12, ¶ 31. Rule 26(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that, before any discovery may be served, the parties must confer as required by Rule 26(f) absent an 1 exception, stipulation, or court order. A party seeking leave to conduct expedited discovery bears the burden of making a prima facie case for such early discovery. Hard Drive Prods., Inc. v. Doe, 283 F.R.D. 409, 410 (N.D. Ill. 2012). In order to meet this burden, the movant must establish “good cause.” Id. Good cause can be found when the need for expedited discovery, in consideration with the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party. Id. Roche argues that good cause exists to permit expedited discovery to identify crucial defendants to the lawsuit and to prevent the spoliation of evidence. Dkt. 22 at 56. Roche also claims that the identification of these parties will preserve claims under applicable statutes of limitation and hasten Roche’s recovery in this matter. Dkt. 22 at 6. Roche has not, however, provided the Court with any reason – aside from some speculation – that any of these potential harms would occur if Roche is not permitted to expedite discovery. There is no evidence to suggest that the Pharmacies would destroy business records or engage in the spoliation of evidence. Nor is there evidence that the statute of limitations would run as to Roche’s claims against any of the Pharmacies. In other words, Roche has presented no concrete evidence to establish good cause to permit expedited discovery in the instant case. See Best v. AT & T, Inc., No. 1:12-cv564, 2014 WL 1923149 at *2 (S.D. Ohio May 14, 2014) (“In the absence of evidence establishing a need for a preservation order or expediting discovery, the Court finds no good cause for granting plaintiff’s motions.”). 2 Accordingly, Roche’s Motion for Expedited Discovery is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of May, 2017. ________________________________ LARRY J. McKINNEY, JUDGE United States District Court Southern District of Indiana Distribution attached. 3 Distribution: David O. Tittle BINGHAM GREENEBAUM DOLL LLP dtittle@bgdlegal.com Aron R Fischer PATTERSON BELKNAP TYLER LLP afischer@pbwt.com Jessica Whelan BINGHAM GREENEBAUM DOLL LLP jwhelan@bgdlegal.com Joseph R. Richie PATTERSON BELKNAP TYLER LLP jrichie@pbwt.com Andrew W. Hull HOOVER HULL TURNER LLP awhull@hooverhullturner.com WEBB & WEBB & Jason L. Fulk HOOVER HULL TURNER LLP jfulk@hooverhullturner.com Geoffrey Potter PATTERSON BELKNAP &TYLER LLP gpotter@pbwt.com Riley H. Floyd HOOVER HULL TURNER LLP rfloyd@hooverhullturner.com Tracy Nicole Betz TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP tbetz@taftlaw.com Wayne C. Turner HOOVER HULL TURNER LLP wturner@hooverhullturner.com Danila V. Artaev THE MIKE COX LAW FIRM dartaev@mikecoxlaw.com Jason L. Fulk, HOOVER HULL TURNER LLP jfulk@hooverhullturner.com Donna A. Heiser THE MIKE COX LAW FIRM dheiser@mikecoxlaw.com Jennifer Van Dame KIGHTLINGER & GRAY LLP jvandame@k-glaw.com Ernest J. Essad WILLIAMS, WILLIAMS, RATTNER & PLUNKETT, PC 380 N. Old Woodward Ave., Suite 300 Birmingham, MI 48009 Robert M. Kelso KIGHTLINGER & GRAY LLP rkelso@k-glaw.com John M. Sier Kitch Drutchas Wagner Sherbrook john.sier@kitch.com Valitutti WEBB Mark R. James WILLIAMS, WILLIAMS, RATTNER & PLUNKETT, PC 380 N. Old Woodward Ave., Suite 300 Birmingham, MI 48009 & 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?