United States of America et al v. Bluewave Healthcare Consultants Inc et al
ORDER AND OPINION denying without prejudice 391 BlueWave Defendants' Motion to Strike the Government's allegedly late-named witnesses. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 4/19/2017.(sshe, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
United States of America, et al.,
ex reI. Scarlett Lutz, et al.,
Berkeley Heartlab, Inc., et al. ,
Civil Action No. 9: 14-cv-00230-RMG
(Consolidated with 9:11-cv-1593-RMG and
ORDER and OPINION
The Government has filed a complaint in intervention against Defendants BlueWave
Healthcare Consultants, Inc., Floyd Calhoun Dent, III, and Robert Bradford Johnson (the
"Bluewave Defendants") alleging violations of the False Claims Act. (Dkt. No. 75.) This matter
is before the Court on the BlueWave Defendants' motion to strike the Government's allegedly
late-named witnesses. (Dkt. No. 391.) For the reasons below, the motion is denied without
On March 7 and March 9, 2017, the Government named an additional thirty-nine (39)
witnesses. The BlueWave Defendants filed the instant motion to strike those witnesses on March
23,2017, arguing that the Government's allegedly late notice did not provide them adequate time
to notice and conduct depositions of those witnesses before discovery was set to end on April
21,2017. (Dkt. No. 391-1 at 2.) This Court has since entered an amended scheduling order
extending the discovery period to June 2, 2017. (Dkt. No. 418.) While the BlueWave defendants
initially had forty-four (44) calendar days to notice and conduct depositions of the allegedly late
named witnesses, they now have 86 calendar days to do the same. Therefore, taking no 'position
on whether the Government named these witnesses in a timely manner, the BlueWave
Defendants' motion to strike (Dkt. No. 391) is denied without prejudice.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Court Judge
April _I_~_, 2017
Charleston, South Carolina
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?