Dineen v. Dorchester House Multi-Service Center, inc.

Filing 40

Ch. Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered granting in part and denying in part 34 , Defendant's Motion to Stay and for a Protective Order. See Order attached. (Denardo, Nancy)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
____________________________________
)
MARYANNE DINEEN,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
Civil Action No. 13-12200-LTS
)
DORCHESTER HOUSE MULTI)
SERVICE CENTER, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A
STAY OF DEPOSITION AND A PROTECTIVE ORDER
June 5, 2014
SOROKIN, C.M.J.
Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order (Docket #34), is ALLOWED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART as set forth below. Defendant’s objections are well taken. As narrowed by
the Court below, the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition shall proceed on three of the four disputed topics.
The Stay is Lifted.
Topic 8
Defendant shall produce a witness prepared to testify regarding (a) its policies and
procedures for compliance with Medicare Part B regulations regarding coding or service
locations and (b) its general policies and procedures, if any, regarding the handling of possible or
perceived non-compliance with Medicare billing regulations. The topic encompasses the time

period January 1, 2010 until January 31, 2014. The fourteen-year time period proposed by
Plaintiff is substantially overbroad. 1
Topics 9
Plaintiff agreed to drop Topic 9 in light of an identical interrogatory. Docket #35-1 at 12.
While Plaintiff later took the position that its agreement was “tentative” and that Defendant was
taking advantage of Plaintiff concessions while persisting in all of its objections, see Docket #351 at 15, both points are incorrect. Neither the email nor the opposition establish that anything
about the agreement was “tentative” nor explain how or why it was tentative. Moreover, plainly,
Defendant did not persist in its objections to all topics, rather counsel negotiated a resolution of
many topics leaving three disputed topics for possible further discussion between counsel.
Docket #35-1 at 12-13. The Court will enforce the agreement. In any event, Topic 9 duplicates
an answered interrogatory. Because it seeks only the identification of witnesses, requiring a Rule
30(b)(6) deponent to provide the list is unnecessary duplication of the interrogatory answer. 2
Thus, the Court strikes Topic 9.
Topic 10
Defendant shall produce a witness prepared to testify regarding Defendant’s place of
service designation for Medicare billing and the requirements or regulations applicable to the
place of service designation for Medicare billing. This topic encompasses the period January 1,
2010 through January 31, 2014. To the extent Plaintiff’s interrogatories overlap some of the
narrowed topic, Plaintiff is entitled to testimony. The Court has eliminated the cumulative
overlap.
1

The Court’s time limitation does not render the 1999 agreement between Boston Medical Center and the
Defendant, relevant or irrelevant to the deposition. Rather, the relevancy of that agreement to Topic 8 turns on
whether the agreement remained in effect during the relevant time period and bears on either of the enumerated
topics.
2
This ruling does not prohibit discovery into some of the issues described in Plaintiff’s opposition, but Topic 9
does not lead to testimony on those issues.

2

Topic 17
Defendant shall produce a witness prepared to testify regarding claims of or allegations
of retaliation against an employee of Defendant allegedly arising out of the employee identifying
possible non-compliance with Medicare billing regulations. This topic encompasses the period
January 1, 2010 through January 31, 2014.
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order (Docket #34), is ALLOWED IN
PART AND DENIED IN PART.

/s/ Leo T. Sorokin
Leo T. Sorokin
Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge

3