June Medical Services LLC et al v. Gee et al

Filing 15

ORDER granting 14 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer. Defendants are granted until 12/16/2016 to file responsive pleadings to plaintiff's complaint. Status Report due by 11/16/2016. Scheduling Conference set for 12/1/2016 at 10:30 AM in chambers before Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois Jr. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 7/21/2016. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JUNE MEDICAL SERVICES LLC d/b/a HOPE
MEDICAL GROUP FOR WOMEN, on behalf of
its patients, physicians, and staff; BOSSIER
CITY MEDICAL SUITE, on behalf of its
patients, physicians, and staff; JOHN DOE 1,
M.D.; JOHN DOE 2, M.D.; and JOHN DOE 3,
M.D.,

Case No. 16-CV-444-BAJ-RLB

Plaintiffs,
v.
REBEKAH GEE, in her official capacity as
Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health
and Hospitals; JEFF LANDRY, in his official
capacity as Attorney General of Louisiana; J.
MICHAEL BURDINE, MD, in his official
capacity as President of the Louisiana State Board
of Medical Examiners; JAMES E. STEWART,
SR., in his official capacity as District Attorney
for Caddo Parish; and J. SCHUYLER MARVIN,
in his official capacity as District Attorney for
Bossier and Webster Parishes,
Defendants.

ORDER
Considering the foregoing Motion for Extension of Time filed by the Defendants (R. Doc.
14) on July 15, 2016, the stipulation of the parties attached thereto (R. Doc. 14-1), there being no
opposition to the relief requested, and for good cause shown;
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion (R. Doc. 14) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants are granted an extension of time until
December 16, 2016 to file pleadings responsive to Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a scheduling conference is hereby set before United
States Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. for December 1, 2016 at 10:30 a.m.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a status report shall be filed not later than November
16, 2016. Consistent with the parties’ joint stipulation, this status report shall contain proposed
deadlines for conducting discovery and the filing of motions. It shall be the duty of the attorney
for plaintiffs to prepare, sign, and file the status report in accordance with Attachment A.1 The
parties shall hold their FRCP 26(f) scheduling conference at least 21 days before the date of the
scheduling conference.
No party may submit a separate status report without first obtaining leave of court for
good cause shown. Mere disagreements among parties with respect to any of the matters
addressed in the report should be set forth in the appropriate section of the joint status report.
The Court will review the report prepared and filed in accordance with Attachment A in
advance of the conference to determine whether or not the scheduling conference should go
forward as scheduled, be reset, or be cancelled and a scheduling order issued based upon the
report. In the event there are no reported problems requiring court intervention and the parties
have provided a timely report setting forth applicable deadlines, the court will notify the parties
that the conference will not be held and that a scheduling order based on their submitted

1

In accordance with Local Rule 10, documents for filing shall be double spaced. The parties may,
however, single space the body of each section of the status report if desired.

deadlines will be forthcoming. Unless the court issues an order cancelling the conference, the
conference will be held as scheduled.
In accordance with Local Rule 26(b), the parties shall provide their initial disclosures to
the opposing party no later than 7 days before the date of the scheduling conference, unless a
party objects to initial disclosures during the FRCP 26(f) conference and states the objection in
the status report.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on July 21, 2016.

S

RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ATTACHMENT A
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JUNE MEDICAL SERVICES LLC d/b/a HOPE
MEDICAL GROUP FOR WOMEN, on behalf of
its patients, physicians, and staff; BOSSIER
CITY MEDICAL SUITE, on behalf of its
patients, physicians, and staff; JOHN DOE 1,
M.D.; JOHN DOE 2, M.D.; and JOHN DOE 3,
M.D.,

Case No. 16-CV-444-BAJ-RLB

Plaintiffs,
v.
REBEKAH GEE, in her official capacity as
Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health
and Hospitals; JEFF LANDRY, in his official
capacity as Attorney General of Louisiana; J.
MICHAEL BURDINE, MD, in his official
capacity as President of the Louisiana State Board
of Medical Examiners; JAMES E. STEWART,
SR., in his official capacity as District Attorney
for Caddo Parish; and J. SCHUYLER MARVIN,
in his official capacity as District Attorney for
Bossier and Webster Parishes,
Defendants.

STATUS REPORT
A.

JURISDICTION
What is the basis for the jurisdiction of the Court?

B.

BRIEF EXPLANATION OF THE CASE
1.

Plaintiff claims:

2.
C.

Defendant claims:

PENDING MOTIONS
List any pending motion(s), the date filed, and the basis of the motion(s):

D.

ISSUES
List the principal legal issues involved and indicate whether or not any of those issues are
in dispute:

E.

DAMAGES
Separately, for each party who claims damages or an offset, set forth the computation of
damages or the offset:
1.
2.

Defendant’s calculation of offset and/or plaintiff’s damages:

3.
F.

Plaintiff’s calculation of damages:

Counterclaimant/cross claimant/third party’s calculation of damages:

SERVICE:
Identify any unresolved issues as to waiver or service of process, personal jurisdiction, or
venue:

G.

DISCOVERY
1.

Initial Disclosures:
A.

Have the initial disclosures required under FRCP 26(a)(1) been completed?
[ ] YES

[ ] NO

In accordance with Local Rule 26(b), the parties shall provide their initial
disclosures to the opposing party no later than 7 days before the date of the
scheduling conference, unless a party objects to initial disclosures during the FRCP
26(f) conference and states the objection below.

B.

6
Do any parties object to initial disclosures?
[ ] YES

[ ] NO

For any party who answered yes, please explain your reasons for objecting.
2.

Briefly describe any discovery that has been completed or is in progress:
By plaintiff(s):
By defendant(s):

3.

Please describe any protective orders or other limitations on discovery that may be
required/sought during the course of discovery. (For example: are there any
confidential business records or medical records that will be sought?

Will

information that is otherwise privileged be at issue?)
4.

Discovery from experts:
Identify the subject matter(s) as to which expert testimony will be offered:
By plaintiff(s):
By defendant(s):

H.

PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER
1.

If the parties propose an alternative timeframe for exchanging initial disclosures,
please provide that proposed deadline:

2.

.

Recommended deadlines to join other parties or to amend the pleadings:
.

3.

Filing all discovery motions and completing all discovery except experts:
.

4.

7
Disclosure of identities and resumés of expert witnesses (if appropriate, you may
suggest different dates for disclosure of experts in different subject matters):
Plaintiff(s):
Defendant(s):

5.

.
.

Exchange of expert reports:
Plaintiff(s):

.

Defendant(s):

.

6.

Completion of discovery from experts:

.

7.

Filing dispositive motions and Daubert motions:

8.

All remaining deadlines and the pre-trial conference and trial date will be included

.

in the initial scheduling order. The deadlines will be determined based on the
presiding judge’s schedule, within the following general parameters.1 The parties
should not provide any proposed dates for these remaining deadlines.
a.

Deadline to file pre-trial order (approximately 16 weeks after dispositive
motion deadline).

b.

Deadline to file motions in limine (approximately 20-22 weeks after
dispositive motion deadline).

c.

Deadline to file responses to motions in limine (approximately 22-24 weeks
after dispositive motion deadline).

1

The date ranges provided for the new deadlines, pre-trial conference, and trial date are a general
guideline only. The actual dates may vary depending on the complexity of a particular case. All
requests for subsequent changes to the deadlines set in the scheduling order under number 7 must
be by motion directed to the presiding judge.

d.

Deadline to file an affidavit of settlement efforts (approximately 22-24
weeks after dispositive motion deadline).

e.

Deadline to submit joint jury instructions, voir dire, verdict forms, and trial
briefs to the presiding judge (approximately 25-27 weeks after dispositive
motion deadline).

f.

Pre-trial conference date (approximately 18-20 weeks after dispositive
motion deadline).

g.

9.

Trial date (approximately 27-29 weeks after dispositive motion deadline).

If the general outline of proposed deadlines does not fit the circumstances of your
particular case, please provide a proposed joint schedule of deadlines which is more
appropriate for your case.

I.

TRIAL
1.

Has a demand for trial by jury been made?
[ ] YES

2.

J.

[ ] NO

Estimate the number of days that trial will require.

OTHER MATTERS
Are there any specific problems the parties wish to address at the scheduling conference?
[ ] YES

[ ] NO

i.

If the answer is yes, please explain:

ii.

If the answer is no, do the parties want the court to cancel the scheduling
conference and to enter a scheduling order based on the deadlines set out

in this report? CHECK “NO” IF YOU HAVE NOT SUBMITTED
JOINT PROPOSED DEADLINES.
[ ] YES
K.

[ ] NO

SETTLEMENT
1.

Please set forth what efforts, if any, the parties have made to settle this case to
date.

2.

Do the parties wish to have a settlement conference:
[ ] YES

[ ] NO

If your answer is yes, at what stage of litigation would a settlement conference be most
beneficial?

L.

CONSENT TO JURISDICTION BY A MAGISTRATE JUDGE
You have the right to waive your right to proceed before a United States District Judge
and may instead consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge.
Indicate whether, at this time, all parties will agree, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), to
have a Magistrate Judge handle all the remaining pretrial aspects of this case and preside
over a jury or bench trial, with appeal lying to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit.
All parties agree to jurisdiction by a Magistrate Judge of this court:
[ ] YES

[ ] NO

If your response was “yes” to the preceding question, all attorneys and unrepresented
parties should sign the attached form to indicate your consent.

Report dated:
Attorney(s) for Plaintiff(s)1 or Pro Se Plaintiff

1

See L.R. 11(a) regarding Signing of Pleadings, Motions and Other Papers and L.R. 5(f) regarding
Certificate of Service.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO CONSENT TO DISPOSITION OF
CIVIL CASE BY A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 636(c), you are hereby notified that all of
the parties in this civil case may consent to allow a United States Magistrate Judge of this district
court to conduct any and all proceedings, including trial of the case and entry of a final judgment.
You may consent by signing the form contained within the status report, or you may use
the attached form at any later stage of the proceedings should you decide at that time to proceed
before the United States Magistrate Judge. A copy of a consent form is enclosed and is also
available from the clerk of court. In the event all parties consent to proceed before the Magistrate
Judge, the signed consent form must be filed with the court electronically, but ONLY AFTER
ALL PARTIES HAVE SIGNED THE FORM.
You should be aware that your decision to consent, or not to consent, to the disposition of
your case before a United States Magistrate Judge is entirely voluntary. Either the district judge or
the magistrate judge may again advise the parties of the availability of the magistrate judge, but in
doing so, shall also advise the parties that they are free to withhold consent without adverse
consequences.
Please note that the parties may appeal the magistrate judge's decision directly to the court
of appeals in the same manner as an appeal from any other judgment of the district court.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JUNE MEDICAL SERVICES LLC d/b/a HOPE
MEDICAL GROUP FOR WOMEN, on behalf of
its patients, physicians, and staff; BOSSIER
CITY MEDICAL SUITE, on behalf of its
patients, physicians, and staff; JOHN DOE 1,
M.D.; JOHN DOE 2, M.D.; and JOHN DOE 3,
M.D.,

Case No. 16-CV-444-BAJ-RLB

Plaintiffs,
v.
REBEKAH GEE, in her official capacity as
Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health
and Hospitals; JEFF LANDRY, in his official
capacity as Attorney General of Louisiana; J.
MICHAEL BURDINE, MD, in his official
capacity as President of the Louisiana State Board
of Medical Examiners; JAMES E. STEWART,
SR., in his official capacity as District Attorney
for Caddo Parish; and J. SCHUYLER MARVIN,
in his official capacity as District Attorney for
Bossier and Webster Parishes,
Defendants.

CONSENT TO PROCEED BEFORE A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 636(c), the parties to the above captioned
civil proceeding hereby waive their right to proceed before a United States District Judge and
consent to have a United States Magistrate Judge conduct any and all further proceedings in the
case, including but not limited to the trial of the case, and order the entry of judgment in the case.

The parties are aware that in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(3), any aggrieved party
may appeal from the judgment directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
in the same manner as an appeal from any other judgment of the district court.
Date

Party Represented

Pro Se or Atty. Name

Pro Se or Atty. Signature