Starkey v. Amber Enterprises, Inc. et al

Filing 44

ORDER - regarding telephone conference regarding a discovery dispute was held before the undersigned on September 28, 2018. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Susan M. Bazis. (KLF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
LANA L. STARKEY,
Plaintiff,

8:17CV29

vs.
ORDER
AMBER ENTERPRISES, INC., a Corporation;
HY-VEE, INC., a Corporation; and MIKE
AGOSTINO, Individually;
Defendants.
A telephone conference regarding a discovery dispute was held before the undersigned on
September 28, 2018. Following discussion with the parties,
IT IS ORDERED as to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production of Documents to Defendants:

1.

Defendants’ responses to Request for Production Nos. 7, 8, and 9 are currently

sufficient. However, Defendants shall provide Plaintiff with a written statement as to the timeline
for the alleged Medicaid overpayments and the dollar amount of such overpayments.

2.

Defendants responses to Request for Production Nos. 10 and 11 are currently

sufficient. However, the responses may be revisited based upon information learned during
depositions.

3.

Defendants have supplemented their responses to Request for Production Nos. 13,

23, and 45. Plaintiff reserves the right to reassert objections to Defendants’ responses following
review of the supplemental responses.

4.

Defendants’ response to Request for Production No. 38 is sufficient.

5.

The parties shall confer regarding Request for Production Nos. 16 and 17 as to

narrowing search terms and the timeline.

6.

Defendants shall supplement their responses to Document Production Request Nos.

21 and 22 to provide disciplinary reports related to Ms. Rice and Ms. Tomes regarding the
Medicaid overpayment issue.

7.

Defendants represent that all documents have been produced that are responsive to

Request for Production No. 24.

8.

The parties shall meet and confer to narrow the scope of Document Production

Request Nos. 25 and 26.

In order to do so, Plaintiff shall provide Defendants with a list of

individuals who Plaintiff believes are comparators. Defendant reserves the right to object to the
individuals who Plaintiff identifies as comparators.

9.

Defendants responses to Document Production Request Nos. 39 and 40 are

sufficient as the documents requested are privileged.

10.

Plaintiff shall review the emails produced in response to Document Production

Request Nos. 41 and 42. The parties shall confer in the event Plaintiff believes additional
information is necessary.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as to Defendants’ discovery requests:

11.

Plaintiff’s responses to Request for Admission Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,

14 and 15 are sufficient.

12.

Plaintiff shall answer Interrogatory Nos. 3, 10, 11, and 15 served by Defendant

Mike Agostino. Plaintiff has supplemented her responses to Interrogatory Nos. 9, 12, and 13
served by Defendant Mike Agostino. Defendants reserve the right to reassert objections to
Plaintiff’s responses following review of the supplementation.
2

13.

Plaintiff has supplemented her responses to Document Production Request Nos. 3,

14, and 32 served by Defendant Mike Agostino. Defendants reserve the right to reassert objections
to Plaintiff’s responses following review of the supplementation.

14.

Plaintiff shall answer Interrogatory Nos. 12 and 13 served by Defendant Amber

Enterprises, Inc.

Defendants have withdrawn their objection to Plaintiff’s response to

Interrogatory No. 10 served by Defendant Amber Enterprises, Inc. as the response was
supplemented.

15.

Plaintiff has supplemented her responses to Interrogatory Nos. 4, 5, 7, and 9 served

by Defendant Amber Enterprises, Inc. Defendants reserve the right to reassert objections to
Plaintiff’s responses following review of the supplementation.

16.

Plaintiff shall respond to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, and 3 served by Defendant Amber

Enterprises, Inc.

17.

Plaintiff shall answer Interrogatory No. 8 served by Defendant Amber Enterprises,

Inc. limited to the time frame of 2013 to the present.

18.

Plaintiff shall supplement her responses to Request for Production Nos. 8, 9, and

13 served by Defendant Mike Agostino to provide premium and benefit information for 2015 and
2016.

19.

Plaintiff shall respond to Request for Production Nos. 33 and 34 served by

Defendant Mike Agostino.

Dated this 28th day of September, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Susan M. Bazis
United States Magistrate Judge

3