Jones v. Wellpath, LLC et al
Filing
96
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1. Ms. Jones shall be awarded $21,590.00 in attorneys' fees as a remedy for Wellpath's failure to timely disclose vital evidence in this action against Wellpath and Defense Counsel jointly, 2. Jones' Motion to Continue R. 91 is GRANTED. The Scheduling Order shall be amended as follows: a. By 8/1/24 Plf shall complete discovery and supplement her expert reports b. All dispositive and any Daubert motions shall be filed NLT 9/16/24, with response and reply time as per Local Rule 7.1(c)(1) and (2). c. This matter is assigned for a Telephonic Pretrial Conference before the trial judge on February 27, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. to originate from Lexington. The Court will enter a separat e Order with call information prior to the proceeding. d. This action is set for TRIAL BY JURY on March 10, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Ashland, Kentucky. Counsel and parties to appear at 8:30 a.m. The anticipated length of trial is seven (7) day s. 3. Because Wellpath produced its response to Jones' Second Discovery Request, specifically emails in its possession concerning Mr. Raymond Jones' Motion to Compel R. 70 is DENIED AS MOOT. 4. Having considered the information in Wellpa th's Motion for Hearing R. 53 and Jones' Motion for Order to show Cause R 59 and to clarify the record, the parties' motions R 53 and R 59 shall be DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins on 5/13/24.(KSS)cc: COR, Lex Court Diary
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
NORTHERN DIVISION
ASHLAND
CIVIL ACTION NO. 0:22-CV-00042-KKC-EBA
BRITNEY ALLEN JONES,
PLAINTIFF,
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
V.
WELLPATH, LLC, et al.,
*** *** *** ***
DEFENDANTS.
This action involves the death of Chad Raymond which occurred while he was incarcerated
at the Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex (EKCC) on May 9, 2021. [R. 1]. Plaintiff Brittany
Allen Jones, Mr. Raymond’s sister and administrator of his estate, filed a complaint on May 31,
2022, alleging that Defendants Wellpath Inc., Betty Noble, Jennifer Blanton, Leland Sexton,
Christpher Stevens, and Lacy Russell were negligent, grossly negligent, and deliberately
indifferent to Mr. Raymond’s medical needs. [R. 1]. Jones alleges that Raymond exhibited the
signs and symptoms of “potentially fatal endocarditis for at least a month before he was taken to a
hospital.” [R. 59 at pg. 1]. This action is before the Court following a status conference held on
March 1, 2024, to discuss the appropriate next steps and possible relief for Wellpath’s late
disclosure of a critical document. For the following reasons, the Court will extend the discovery
deadline and award attorneys’ costs and fees to Ms. Jones as set forth below.
Facts and Background
On November 19, 2022, Jones sent Defendants her First Set of Interrogatories and Requests
for Production of Documents. [R. 59-1]. Specifically, in Jones’ First Set of Requests, Interrogatory
No. 4 asks Wellpath to “[s]pecify all tests, examinations, and/or medications administered to Mr.
Page 1 of 14
Raymond during the events made the basis of Plaintiff’s Complaint, by whom such tests,
examinations, and/or medications were administered, and the results of such tests, examinations,
and/or medications.” [R. 64-2 at pg. 9]. Wellpath responded to the request four months later on
March 17, 2023. [R. 64-2]. Wellpath used boilerplate language to broadly object to nearly all of
the interrogatories and requests for production. [Id.]. Wellpath repeatedly stated, without support,
that Jones’ requests were overly broad, irrelevant, burdensome, confidential, and/or the requested
information was not in its possession. [Id.]. Particularly, in response to Interrogatory No. 4,
Wellpath objected stating that the request was too broad, unduly burdensome, and the records were
in the possession of Kentucky Department of Corrections, not Wellpath. [R. 64-2 at pg. 9].
On June 16, 2023, Jones served Wellpath her Second Set of Discovery Requests for “all
emails, texts, or documents evidencing communications among or between Defendants concerning
Chad Raymond.” [R. 64-9]. On August 30, 2023, Jones disclosed her experts, pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26. [R. 43].
Sometime between June 16, 2023, and October 25, 2023, Jones served Wellpath her Third
Set of Discovery Requests for documents indicating the income and profitability of Wellpath’s
operations. [R. 64-8]. Wellpath broadly objected with boilerplate language to state that the request
was unduly burdensome, broad, vague, ambiguous, and the documents requested are not in its
control. [Id.]. On October 17, 2023, Jones served Wellpath her Fourth Set of Discovery Requests
for the name of the “provider nurse” discussed during a recent deposition and any “after-death”
and/or mortality/morbidity forms or reports concerning Mr. Raymond or any of the events at issue
in this litigation. [R. 64-10]. Wellpath did not respond to Jones’ Fourth Request. [R. 64 at pg. 2].
On October 23, 2023, the Court granted the defendants’ unopposed motion extending the deadline
Page 2 of 14
to file initial expert disclosures from November 1, 2023, to December 1, 2023. [R. 49]. December
1, 2023, was the discovery deadline in this action. [R. 38].
Then, on November 16, 2023, two weeks before the discovery deadline, Wellpath filed a
motion for a hearing. [R. 53]. In its motion, counsel for Defendants claimed that Wellpath found
new records that had yet to be produced and requested a conference with the court to discuss the
documents and keeping the case on track for trial. [R. 53 at pg. 2]. Defense counsel asserted that
on November 16, 2023, during a meeting with her client, Wellpath, she was informed that
“additional records had just been located that were stored separately from the records the
undersigned previously produced.” [R. 53 at pg. 2]. Defense counsel stated that the defendants
were “more than willing to allow [Jones] to take additional depositions and supplement her
disclosures” because they were “aware of the implications of producing pertinent records after the
close of discovery, after depositions have been conducted, and after [Jones] has disclosed her
expert.” [Id.]. Wellpath simultaneously produced 135 documents to Jones. [Id.; R. 55].
In response, Jones stated that she did not know the “volume, nature, or relevance” of the
135 newly produced documents or their impact on the scope of the case. [R. 55]. Jones asked the
Court to order Wellpath to identify the specific documents that necessitated the supplemental
production. [Id.]. On November 22, 2023, the court ordered Wellpath to produce to Jones, and the
court, an identification of the specific documents that necessitated Wellpath’s supplemental
production. [R. 56]. On November 28, 2023, Wellpath filed a notice with the court stating that, of
the 135 documents produced, there was only one new document, which was titled “doppler
echocardiogram.” [R. 57].
The “doppler echocardiogram” report at issue shows the following information. The XRay was ordered on March 30, 2021, by ordering provider Betty Noble, at EKCC. [R. 59-6]. The
Page 3 of 14
Type of Encounter was a “nurse- sick call” and the staff name listed is Barbara Turner. [Id.]. The
diagnosis code states, “chronic viral hepatitis C” and the X-Ray ordered was a “doppler
echocardiogram continu.” [Id.]. The X-Ray Taken Date was March 30, 2021, at EKCC, at 9:28:05
A.M. [Id.]. The X-Ray Results were processed on April 1, 2021, at 6:30 A.M., and signed on the
same day at 6:17:24 A.M. by George N. Welch, M.D. [Id.]. Among other things, George N. Welch,
M.D. states, “LV function is normal and therefore no evidence of a cardiac etiology for the ascites.”
[Id.].
On December 1, 2023, Defendants disclosed their expert, Dr. Thomas Fowlkes, and his 53page expert report. [R. 58]. In his report, Dr. Fowlkes uses the newly found echocardiogram report
and its results to support his opinion. [Id.]. On December 2, 2023, Jones served her Fifth Discovery
Request to Wellpath requesting information about George N. Welch, M.D., and any contracts,
agreements, or other documents by which he was designated to review the results of
echocardiograms ordered by Wellpath. [R. 64-11].
On December 9, 2023, Jones filed a Motion for an Order to Show Cause requesting the
Court order Wellpath to “demonstrate the authenticity” of the recently produced echocardiogram
report and “show cause why it should not be sanctioned for failing to produce such document in
this litigation before now.” [R. 59 at pg. 9]. In her motion, Jones argued that the echocardiogram
report is a critically relevant document that should have been produced months earlier. [R. 59].
According to Jones, the documents produced by Wellpath in this case contained no evidence to
indicate that the echocardiogram was ever performed. [R. 59 at pg. 6]. The lack of an
echocardiogram, therefore, “became the central thrust” of Jones’ case in discovery. [Id.].
Jones argues that due to the late production of the critically relevant document, she will be
required to re-conduct depositions and conduct discovery on the authenticity of the
Page 4 of 14
echocardiogram report and the information within it. Wellpath states it is willing to allow Jones
additional time for discovery and “will follow the Court’s ruling regarding the payment for
Plaintiff’s additional and supplemental expenses incurred based on the production of the
[echocardiogram report].” [R. 61 at pg. 2].
On December 19, 2023, the Court ordered Jones to produce to the Court all discovery
requests sent to Wellpath and Wellpath’s responses to those requests. [R. 63]. On December 22,
2023, Jones produced to the Court her First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth discovery requests,
and Wellpath’s responses to her First, Third, and Fourth Requests. [R. 64]. On January 12, 2024,
the Court ordered Jones to produce an affidavit outlining an itemization of costs, fees and time
spent on this action from Jones’ initial complaint through November 17, 2023, the date Wellpath
notified the court of its supplemental production. [R. 67]. Plaintiffs’ Counsel, George Belzley and
Christopher Rhoads, submitted their affidavits asserting $31,067.25 and $15,473.75 in costs, fees,
and time. [R. 68; 69].
On February 5, 2024, Jones filed a motion to compel Wellpath to produce a response to
her Second Discovery Request, initially served on June 16, 2023, requesting all emails, texts, or
documents evidencing communications among or between Defendants concerning Chad
Raymond. [R. 70 at pg. 2]. On February 26, 2024, Jones filed a second motion to compel Wellpath
to respond to her Fifth Discovery Request, initially served on December 2, 2023, requesting
identifying information concerning George N. Welch, M.D., who allegedly authored the
echocardiogram report at issue. [R. 78]. The Court granted Jones’ second motion to compel and
ordered Wellpath to respond to Jones’ Fifth Discovery Request. [R. 80]. Wellpath produced its
answer on February 28, 2024. [R. 84-1]. In its response, Wellpath provided George N. Welch’s
current address, but had no information regarding his training, experience, and qualifications;
Page 5 of 14
name and address of his employer; place of his employment; title, or the office or position he
occupies, with his employer; and location or address at which he allegedly reviewed the
echocardiogram results. [Id. at pgs. 4-5]. Wellpath additionally states, “Dr. George N. Welch was
not an employee of Wellpath, LLC. To this Defendant’s knowledge, Dr. Welch was working for a
third-party vendor performing diagnostics for [EKCC] in 2021.” [Id.]. According to Wellpath, any
relevant contract would be between Dr. Welch and EKCC, not Wellpath, and therefore, Wellpath
does not have access to those records. [Id. at pg. 5].
On March 1, 2024, the undersigned conducted a hearing to discuss the parties’ proposed
next steps in this action. [R. 85]. Jones argued that if the document is allowed and discovery is reopened, Jones should be awarded costs and fees for time previously spent on discovery. Counsel
for Wellpath agreed that if discovery is re-opened, then Jones should be awarded some amount of
costs and fees. During the hearing, the parties also discussed Jones’ outstanding Second Discovery
Request for emails, texts, and other electronic documents that refer to Mr. Raymond. Counsel for
Jones requested that the court order Wellpath to respond to its Second Request for Discovery, in
particular, emails discussing Mr. Raymond sent and received between March and April of 2021.
Counsel for Wellpath did not oppose the request and the parties agreed that Wellpath should
respond to Jones’ Second Request for Discovery within 14 days of the hearing date. Wellpath filed
a response to the Second Request on March 15, 2024. [R. 90].
For the reasons that follow, the undersigned will extend the discovery deadline and award
attorneys’ fees to Ms. Jones to be paid jointly against Defense Counsel and Wellpath. The fee
amount will be calculated beginning from the day that Welllpath should have produced the doppler
echocardiogram report, December 19, 2022, until the day it was actually produced, November 17,
2023.
Page 6 of 14
Legal Standard
A party must answer an interrogatory and serve any objections within 30 days after being
served with interrogatories. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2). Each interrogatory must, to the extent it is
not objected to, be answered separately and fully in writing under oath. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3).
The grounds for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity. Fed. R. Civ. P.
33(b)(4). Similarly, a party must respond in writing within 30 days after being served any request
for production of documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A). Any objection to a request for production
must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C).
A party who has made a disclosure under Rule 26(a), or who has responded to an
interrogatory, request for production, or request for admission, must supplement or correct its
disclosure or response in a timely manner if the party learns that, in some material respect, the
disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect, and has not otherwise been made known to the
other parties during the discovery process. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(A). All fact and expert
discovery in this action was to be completed, with requests served in a manner calculated for
response compliant with the deadline, by December 1, 2023. [R. 21, 38].
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 37(c) provides for certain sanctions if a party fails to
disclose, supplement an earlier response, or admit in accordance with Rule 26. The Court may
order payment of reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1)(A).
Additionally, on a motion or on its own, the court may order a party, its attorney, or both, to pay
the reasonable expenses incurred because of any failure to obey a scheduling order, unless the noncompliance was substantially justified, or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f).
Page 7 of 14
Analysis
Here, the late disclosure of vital evidence in this case and Wellpath’s overall discovery
practice raises several serious concerns. Defense Counsel asserts that mere days before the
discovery deadline, Wellpath brought the undisclosed doppler echocardiogram report to their
attention. Wellpath represents that the echocardiogram report was not produced earlier because it
was not part of the decedent’s original chart and medical records. However, Wellpath offers little
explanation as to why the document was kept separately or why it failed to produce documents
from all locations where relevant evidence could have been held. Furthermore, Wellpath produced
the crucial document in a set of 135 previously produced documents, and while counsel argues
that it was produced in that way to show how the document was found, Wellpath’s production
appears to hide the vital document in the midst of over 100 other documents. Wellpath’s expert
witness, Dr. Fowlkes, was able to provide an expert report merely two weeks after Wellpath first
produced the echo report in which he uses the echocardiogram results as one basis for his opinion.
[R. 57; R. 58]. Dr. Fowlkes report is undated, so it is not clear to the court when Defendants’
expert witness had access to the echocardiogram report.
Jones spent the entirety of discovery in this action building a case on the lack of evidence
of an echocardiogram having been performed on the decedent. Because of this, Jones must now
re-do a large portion of the discovery already completed and engage in new discovery on the
echocardiogram report. Wellpath’s late disclosure will cause Jones to incur various expenses
including, at least, re-conducting defendant depositions and conducting discovery on the
authenticity of the echocardiogram report. Because Jones is prejudiced by the late disclosure in
this action, the parties agreed that awarding Jones attorneys’ fees would be appropriate. Wellpath
failed to produce the echocardiogram report in its possession in its response to Jones’ first
Page 8 of 14
discovery request and did not disclose the document until two weeks before the discovery deadline.
Accordingly, attorneys’ fees will be awarded against Wellpath for its failure to find the critical
case document and for its late disclosure of that document.
Additionally, attorneys’ fees will also be awarded against Defense Counsel for their
obstructionist responses to Jones’ Requests for Discovery. A party objecting to a discovery request
must particularly state the objection grounds; a boilerplate objection has no legal effect. Davis v.
American Highwall Mining, LLC, 570 F.Supp. 491, 495 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 11, 2020) (citing Four
Fibers, LLC v. Keps Techs., 2019 WL 6339814, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 27, 2019) (collecting
cases)). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b)(4) and Federal Rule 34(b)(2)(B) require that
objections to interrogatories and requests for production state with specificity the grounds for
objecting to the request. Boilerplate objections “give the impression that the responding party did
not take the serving party’s discovery requests seriously, and that the responding party had already
formulated its replies prior to conducting good faith searches.” Burrell v. Duhon, 2019 WL
5260481, at *5 n.5 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 17, 2019).
The advisory committee notes to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 contemplate sanctions
as a solution to discovery abuses. Wesley Corp. v. Zoom T.V. Products, LLC, 2018 WL 372700, at
*5 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 11, 2018); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g) Advisory Committee’s Note to 1983
Amendment (“Thus the premise of Rule 26(g) is that imposing sanctions on attorneys who fail to
meet the rule’s standards will significantly reduce abuse by imposing disadvantages therefor.”).
Rule 26(g) requires the attorney or party signing a response or objection to a discovery request to
certify that the response is consistent with the Federal Rules, not interposed for any improper
purpose, and is not unreasonable nor unduly burdensome or expensive. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1)(B).
In Wesley, where the defendants’ objections to plaintiffs’ discovery requests were boilerplate
Page 9 of 14
objections, the court awarded attorneys’ fees against defendants “in light of the need to deter future
use of boilerplate.” Id.
Here, Wellpath served its answers to Jones’ first discovery request over three months late
on March 17, 2023, after being served the requests on November 19, 2022. Defense Counsel
responded to nearly all of Jones’ requests for interrogatories and requests for production with
unsupported boilerplate objections. In Jones’ first discovery request, Defense Counsel repeatedly
objects on the basis of attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, Patient Safety Work
Product privilege, and that the requests were overly broad, not in Wellpath’s possession, and/or
irrelevant. For example, in response to Interrogatory Number 4 as discussed above, Defense
Counsel provided boilerplate objections without any specificity as to how those objections applied.
[R. 64-2 at pg. 9]. Counsel stated that the interrogatory was “vague and ambiguous, in that it uses
the terms ‘all contacts, observations, and tests/examinations’ but does not specify who may have
generated such documents, rendering the request unanswerable,” and further, stated these records
were not in the possession of Wellpath. [Id.]. However, this request was not vague nor ambiguous,
counsel did not assert why attorney-client privilege applies, and the documents were, in fact, in
the possession of Wellpath because the echocardiogram report was later produced. Due to Defense
Counsel’s obstructionist discovery practices, attorneys’ fees will also be awarded against Defense
Counsel.
Attorney’s Fees
“Generally, an inquiry into the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees involves a determination
of the suitability of the number of hours expended and an analysis of the propriety of the hourly
fee charged.” Bodenhamer Bldg. Corp. v. Architectural Research Corp., 989 F.2d 213, 221 (6th
Cir. 1993). This calculation results in what is called a fee applicant’s “lodestar,” which is the
Page 10 of 14
proven number of hours reasonably expended on the case by an attorney, multiplied by his courtascertained reasonable hourly rate.” Adcock-Ladd v. Sec’y of Treasury, 227 F.3d 343, 349 (6th
Cir. 2000). The lodestar is strongly presumed to yield a reasonable fee. City of Burlington v.
Dague, 505 U.S. 557, 562 (1992).
The Sixth Circuit has held that district courts maintain “broad discretion” when
determining what constitutes an attorney’s reasonable hourly rate. Waldo v. Consumers Energy
Co., 726 F.3d 802, 821 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting Wayne v. Vill. of Sebring, 36 F.3d 517, 533 (6th
Cir. 1994)). Yet, the district court “must provide a concise but clear explanation of its reasons for
the award” by “stat[ing] with some particularity which of the claimed hours the court is rejecting,
which it is accepting, and why.” Smith v. Serv. Master Corp., 592 F. App’x 363, 366 (6th Cir.
2014) (quoting U.S. Structures, Inc. v. J.P. Structures, Inc., 130 F.3d 1185, 1193 (6th Cir. 1997)).
“The burden is on the lawyer seeking fees to submit evidence—‘in addition to the attorney’s own
affidavits’—showing that the requested rate is reasonable.” Id. (quoting Blum v. Stenson, 465
U.S. 886, 895 n.11 (1984)). The district court may also rely upon “awards in analogous cases,
state bar association guidelines, and its own knowledge and experience in handling similar fee
requests.” Waldo, 726 F.3d at 821–22.
Here, because Jones must re-do the discovery already completed that is affected by the
production of the echocardiogram report, Jones will be awarded attorney’s fees for the work
completed from the time that the echocardiogram report should have been produced through the
day it was produced. Jones served her First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production on
November 19, 2022, in which she specifically asked Wellpath to specify all tests, examinations,
and/or medications administered to Mr. Raymond during the events of the basis of this complaint.
[R. 59-1]. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b)(2), Wellpath should have responded
Page 11 of 14
or objected to Jones’ request within 30 days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2). Accordingly, Wellpath
should have produced evidence of the echocardiogram report no later than December 19, 2022.
However, Wellpath produced the echocardiogram document on November 17, 2023.
Mr. Gregory Belzley completed 50.2 hours of work on this case between December 19,
2022, and November 17, 2023, and asserts that his reasonable hourly rate is $400. [R. 68]. Mr.
Christopher Rhoads completed 7.9 hours of work on this case between the same dates and asserts
that his reasonable hourly rate is $350. [R. 69]. In support, each attorney filed a detailed time report
and a declaration averring the accuracy of the report. [R. 68, R. 69].
In the Sixth Circuit, “[t]he prevailing market rate is ‘that rate which lawyers of comparable
skill and experience can reasonably expect to command within the venue of the court of record.’”
Waldo v. Consumers Energy Co., 726 F.3d 802, 821 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting Adcock-Ladd v. Sec’y
of Treasury, 227 F.3d 343, 350 (6th Cir. 2000)). The Sixth Circuit further utilizes the “community
market rule” when calculating a reasonable billing rate. Linneman v. Vita-Mix Corp., 970 F.3d
621, 629–30 (6th Cir. 2020) (citing Hadix v. Johnson, 65 F.3d 532, 536 (6th Cir. 1995)). A
reasonable fee, by the court’s logic, will be different from “the prices charged to well-to-do clients
by the most noted lawyers and renowned firms in a region.” Linneman, 970 F.3d at 630 (quoting
Ne. Ohio Coal. for the Homeless v. Husted, 831 F.3d 686, 716 (6th Cir. 2016)).
Mr. Belzley argues that his rate of $400 is reasonable based on his experience and the
difficulty of this case. Belzley argues that in 2009 his hourly rate exceeded $400 at a large
Lexington firm, and now, his work is “every bit as challenging” and should yield a rate of $400
per hour. [R. 68]. Belzley cites to a recent case from the Eastern District of Kentucky where the
court awarded an hourly rate of up to $375 in a §1983 case for attorneys with less experience than
he. See Hart v. Thomas, 2020 WL 708449, at *2 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 10, 2020). Considering the record
Page 12 of 14
and applicable law, including awards in analogous cases and the Court’s own knowledge and
experience in handling fee requests, Mr. Belzley’s hourly rate shall be reduced to $375 for the
purposes of calculating the fees to be awarded at this time, and Mr. Rhoads hourly rate of $350 is
reasonable.
The lodestar amount should not include any hours that were not "reasonably expended" by
attorneys working on the case. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434. ACC argues that some of the attorneys’
fees requested by Plaintiff’s counsel are unreasonable. [R. 84 at pg. 10]. In determining fee awards,
“courts should not ‘become green-eyeshade accountants,’ but instead must content themselves
with ‘rough justice.’” Rembert v. A Plus Home Health Care Agency, LLC, 986 F.3d 613, 618 (6th
Cir. 2021) (citing Carter v. Hickory Healthcare, Inc., 905 F.3d 963, 970 (6th Cir. 2018)). The
hours expended by Plaintiffs’ counsel in this case between December 19, 2022, and November 17,
2023, are reasonable and non-duplicative, and therefore, are all hours “reasonably expended” by
the attorneys working on this case.
Conclusion
The Court finds that subject to the reductions listed below, the hourly rates of Jones’
attorneys are reasonable, and the hours of work performed by Jones’ counsel are reasonable. For
the reasons stated above, the Court shall make the following reductions:
•
•
Mr. Belzley’s hourly rate shall be reduced to $375.00; and
Only the time entries between December 19, 2024, through November 17, 2023,
shall be considered in determining the attorneys’ fees.
Having fully considered the matter, and the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised,
IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. Ms. Jones shall be awarded $21,590.00 in attorneys’ fees as a remedy for
Wellpath’s failure to timely disclose vital evidence in this action against Wellpath
and Defense Counsel jointly,
Page 13 of 14
2. Jones’ Motion to Continue, [R. 91], is GRANTED. The Scheduling Order shall be
amended as follows:
a. By August 1, 2024, Plaintiff shall complete discovery and supplement her
expert reports.
b. All dispositive and any Daubert motions shall be filed no later than
September 16, 2024, with response and reply time as per Local Rule
7.1(c)(1) and (2).
c. This matter is assigned for a Telephonic Pretrial Conference before the trial
judge on February 27, 2025, at 2:00 P.M. to originate from Lexington.
The Court will enter a separate Order with call information prior to the
proceeding.
d. This action is hereby set for TRIAL BY JURY on March 10, 2025, at 9:00
A.M. in Ashland, Kentucky. Counsel and parties to appear at 8:30 A.M.
The anticipated length of the trial is seven (7) days.
3. Because Wellpath produced its response to Jones’ Second Discovery Request,
specifically emails in its possession concerning Mr. Raymond, Jones’ Motion to
Compel, [R. 70], is DENIED AS MOOT.
4. Having considered the information in Wellpath’s Motion for a Hearing, [R. 53],
and Jones’ Motion for Order to Show Cause, [R. 59], and to clarify the record, the
parties’ motions, [R. 53] and [R. 59], shall be DENIED AS MOOT.
Signed May 13, 2024.
Page 14 of 14
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?