TTI Global Welfare Benefit Plan et al v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan

Filing 32

ORDER denying in part and granting in part defendant's MOTION for a settlement conference and Protective Order to stay depositions 25 (and extension of scheduling order) Discovery deadline 3/30/2016 Dispositive Motion Cut-off set for 5/2/2016 Final Pretrial Conference set for 8/15/2016 10:00 AM Bench Trial set for 8/22/2016 09:00 AM before District Judge George Caram Steeh Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (MBea)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TECHNICAL TRAINING, INC. d/b/a
TTI GLOBAL AND TTI GLOBAL
WELFARE BENEFIT PLAN,

CASE NO. 15-cv-11357
HONORABLE GEORGE CARAM STEEH

Plaintiff,
v.
BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF
MICHIGAN,
Defendant.
/
ORDER DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
AND PROTECTIVE ORDER TO STAY DEPOSITIONS (DOC. #25)
Plaintiff filed this action seeking to recover hidden fees in an ERISA-governed
benefit plan. This case is one of hundreds of similarly filed cases in this district.
Now before the court is defendant’s motion seeking from the court:
(1) an order requiring the parties to participate in a settlement conference before
Magistrate Judge David Grand, the magistrate judge who has handled settlement
conferences in many of these cases;
(2) a stay of depositions pending the conclusion of a settlement conference;
(3) a ninety-day extension of the court’s scheduling order (which the parties agree
should be done); and
(4) bifurcation of the issues of liability and prejudgment interest and staying all
proceedings related to the prejudgment interest pending a judgment on the merits as to
liability.
-1-

(Doc. #25). For the reasons that follow, defendant’s motion will be denied in part and
granted in part. Specifically, the motion will be denied in its entirety except as it relates to
the parties’ agreement to extend the court’s scheduling order by ninety days.
I. SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
First, defendant asks the court to order a settlement conference because the parties
“would benefit from the Court’s assistance in facilitating settlement.” (Doc. #25 at 3).
Without explaining in detail, defendant contends that “the parties have reached critical
impasse on several issues — issues that should not prevent the parties from reaching
settlement.” (Id.).
Plaintiff responds that defendant has not been diligent in its efforts to settle the case,
and the parties are at an impasse such that a settlement conference would not be
beneficial. Indeed, plaintiff contends that “[a] settlement conference at this juncture will not
resolve the impasse, nor will it make up for discovery time lost to purported settlement
negotiations. Only discovery can resolve the ‘factual disconnect.’” (Doc. #28 at 9).
The court agrees with plaintiff that a settlement conference at this juncture is
unwarranted. If the parties mutually agree that they may benefit from a settlement
conference after further discovery, the court will entertain a renewed request to schedule
a settlement conference before a magistrate judge.
II. STAY OF DISCOVERY
Second, defendant seeks a protective order staying and precluding depositions until
the parties have participated in a settlement conference. Having determined that a
settlement conference will not be scheduled at this juncture, defendant’s request for a stay
of depositions is moot.
-2-

III. EXTENSION OF SCHEDULING ORDER
Third, defendant asks the court for a ninety-day extension of the scheduling order.
Plaintiff, in a motion to compel pending before the magistrate judge, also requests a ninetyday extension of the scheduling order. Thus, the court will grant the parties’ joint request
for a ninety-day extension. The court shall issue a new scheduling order as follows:
Discovery cutoff:

3/30/16

Dispositive Motions due:

5/2/16

Final Pretrial Order due:

8/1/16

Final Pretrial Conference: 8/15/16 at 10:00 a.m.
Trial Date:

8/22/16 at 9:00 a.m.

IV. BIFURCATION OF LIABILITY AND PREJUDGMENT INTEREST
Finally, defendant seeks a bifurcation of liability from the issues of prejudgment
interest and a stay of all proceedings relating to prejudgment interest pending a judgment
on the merits. The majority of courts in this district have not bifurcated the issues in
substantially similar cases. Following the majority of courts in this district, this court sees
no benefit from bifurcating the issues.
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained above, defendant’s motion is DENIED IN PART and
GRANTED IN PART.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 4, 2016
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-3-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
January 4, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Marcia Beauchemin
Deputy Clerk

-4-