Coventry Health Care of Nebraska, Inc. v. Nebraska Department of Administrative Services et al

Filing 74

ORDER denying Motion for Evidentiary Hearing and to Present Live Testimony 66 and Motion for Leave to File a Reply Brief 72 in case 4:16-cv-03094-RFR-TDT; and denying Motion for Evidentiary Hearing and to Present Live Testimony 58 and Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief 66 in case 4:16-cv-03100-RFR-TDT. Member Cases: 4:16-cv-03094-RFR-TDT, 4:16-cv-03100-RFR-TDT Ordered by Judge Robert F. Rossiter, Jr. (JSF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
COVENTRY HEALTH CARE OF
NEBRASKA, INC., a Nebraska Domestic
Corporation;

4:16CV03094

Plaintiff,
ORDER
vs.
NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES;
NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES; DOUG
PETERSON, in his official capacity as
Attorney General of the State of Nebraska;
BYRON DIAMOND, in his official
capacity as Director, Nebraska Department
of Administrative Services; COURTNEY
PHILLIPS, CEO of the Nebraska
Department of Health and Human Services;
CALDER LYNCH, in his official capacity
as Director of the Nebraska Department of
Health and Human Services Division of
Medicaid and Long Term Care; and BO
BOTELHO, in his official capacity as
Acting Material Division Administrator;
Defendants,
and
NEBRASKA TOTAL CARE, INC.;
WELLCARE OF NEBRASKA, INC.; and
UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF THE
MIDLANDS, INC.;
Intervenors.
AMERIHEALTH NEBRASKA, INC., a
Nebraska Corporation;
Plaintiff,
vs.
NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, a
political subdivision of the State of
Nebraska; NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT

4:16CV3100

OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
a political subdivision of the State of
Nebraska; BYRON L. DIAMOND,
Director of the Nebraska Department of
Administrative Services; FRANCIS
BOTELHO, Administrator of the Nebraska
Department of Administrative Services
Materiel Division; COURTNEY N.
PHILLIPS, Chief Executive Officer of the
Nebraska Department of Health and Human
Services; and CALDER A. LYNCH,
Director of the Nebraska Department of
Health and Human Services Division of
Medicaid and Long-Term Care;
Defendants,
and
WELLCARE OF NEBRASKA, INC.;
NEBRASKA TOTAL CARE, INC.; and
UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF THE
MIDLANDS, INC.;
Intervenors.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Coventry Health Care of Nebraska,
Inc.’s (“Coventry”) Motion for Evidentiary Hearing and to Present Live Testimony
(Filing No. 66) in support of its Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Filing No. 21).
Coventry also seeks leave to file a Reply Brief in support of its motion for an evidentiary
hearing (Filing No. 72). In response to Coventry’s request for oral argument in support
of its preliminary-injunction motion, the Court scheduled argument for August 11, 2016.
In its present motion, Coventry seeks an order directing that the August 11, 2016, hearing
will be an evidentiary hearing on the merits and requests leave to present live testimony
from Jonathan Copley, Coventry’s Chief Executive Officer, at the hearing. See NECivR
7.1(d), (e). Coventry avers, live “[t]estimony from Mr. Copley is necessary due to the
nature of the factual dispute raised by Defendants’ and Intervenors’ Oppositions to
[Coventry’s] Motion for Preliminary Injunction and to clarify outstanding factual issues
that are essential to” resolve that motion. Coventry also seeks leave to file a reply brief in
support of its motion for an evidentiary hearing (Filing No. 72).
2

The Defendants and Intervenors oppose Coventry’s motions, arguing an
evidentiary hearing is unnecessary because (1) “Mr. Copley has already submitted a 42
paragraph declaration in support of” Coventry’s motion and (2) Coventry submitted a
reply brief to address factual or legal issues raised in the Defendants’ and Intervenors’
opposition briefs and did not attach another declaration from Mr. Copley.

The

Defendants and Intervenors also emphasize that “[g]ranting only one party leave to
present live evidence at the hearing would be indisputably prejudicial.” The Defendants
and Intervenors alternatively request that if the Court grants Coventry’s motion for live
testimony, the Court grant them leave to depose Mr. Copley before the hearing.

Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ submissions, the Court
concludes an evidentiary hearing and live testimony from Mr. Copley are unwarranted at
this time. The Court does not ordinarily grant evidentiary hearings on motions, see
NECivR 7.1(d), and sees no compelling reason to do so here.

The Court is also

concerned granting the requested relief would unduly delay resolution of the request for
preliminary injunctive relief. As such, Coventry’s Motion for Evidentiary Hearing and to
Present Live Testimony (Filing No. 66) and Motion for Leave to File a Reply Brief
(Filing No. 72) are DENIED.

Dated this 8th day of August, 2016.

BY THE COURT:
s/ Robert F. Rossiter, Jr.
United States District Judge

3