Olympus Managed Health Care, Inc. et al v. American Housecall Physicians, Inc. et al

Filing 90

ORDER granting 76 Motion to Compel. Defendant/3d Pty Plaintiff American Housecall to respond to discovery within 15 days of this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge David S. Cayer on 5/10/2011. (bsw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:08CV532-RJC-DSC

OLYMPUS MANAGED
HEALTH CARE, INC. and
OLYMPUS HEALTHCARE
SOLUTIONS, INC.,

)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
AMERICAN HOUSECALL
)
PHYSICIANS, INC., and
)
JONATHAN MCGUIRE,
)
)
Defendants. )
)
and
)
______________________________)
)
AMERICAN HOUSECALL
)
PHYSICIANS, INC., f/k/a
)
INROOMMD, INC.,
)
)
Third-Party Plaintiff, and )
Counterclaimant
)
)
v.
)
)
RONALD A. DAVIS and
)
STEVEN W. JACOBSON,
)
)
Third-Party Defendants
)
______________________________)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Third-Party Defendants’ “Motion to Compel ...”
(document #76) filed April 8, 2011, and the parties’ associated briefs and exhibits. See documents

## 82, 83 and 86.1 This Motion has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §636(b), and is now ripe for the Court’s consideration.
A detailed discussion of the factual background and procedural history in this matter is
contained in the Court’s “Memorandum and Order” (document #60) (denying Third-Party
Defendants’ “Motion to Compel (document #54)); “Memorandum and Order” (document #49)
(granting in part and denying in part Defendant American Housecall Physicians, Inc.’s “Motion to
Compel” (document #45)); and “Memorandum and Recommendation” (document #36)
(recommending Third-Party Defendants’ ‘Motion to Dismiss” (document #22) be granted in part
and denied in part).
The present discovery dispute concerns whether Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff American
Housecall Physicians, Inc. (“AHP”) must respond to the two Interrogatories contained in Third-Party
Defendants’ First Set of Joint Interrogatories.
The Pretrial Order and Case Management Plan (“PTO”) limits each party to propounding
“no more than 20 interrogatories, including sub-parts.” Document #43. The record reflects that
Third-Party Defendants initially served 18 Interrogatories and that the two additional Interrogatories
contained in their First Set of Joint Interrogatories are the remaining Interrogatories they are allowed
pursuant to the PTO..
AHP contends that because the first Joint Interrogatory directs it to explain the basis of any
denial of the four Requests For Admissions also propounded by Third-Party Defendants, that the
Interrogatory actually contains four sub-parts. According to AHP’s reasoning, the Third-Party
Defendants have propounded twenty-three Interrogatories in violation of the PTO.

1

Counsel’s inclusion of excerpts from argumentative emails is unnecessary and does not aid the Court in its
resolution of this matter.

2

The Court has carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions and concludes that for the reasons
stated in Third-Party Defendants’ briefs, the first Joint Interrogatory does not contain sub-parts.
The Joint Interrogatories are single inquiries, and could be construed as containing “sub-parts,” if
at all, only upon AHP’s denial of one or all of the Requests for Admissions. To require the
proponent to recalculate its discovery requests based on the opposing party’s responses to Requests
for Admissions would conflict with the clear language of the PTO.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED:
1. Third-Party Defendants’ “Motion to Compel ...” (document #76) is GRANTED.
2.

Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff American Housecall Physicians, Inc. (“AHP”) is

ORDERED to serve complete responses to Third-Party Defendants’ First Set of Joint
Interrogatories within fifteen (15) days of this Memorandum and Order.
3. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Memorandum and Order to counsel for the
parties; and to the Honorable Robert J. Conrad, Jr.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: May 10, 2011

3