United States of America et al v. Bluewave Healthcare Consultants Inc et al
ORDER AND OPINION granting 422 Motion to Compel. The Court hereby imposes a limit of one-hundred (100) interrogatories which is more appropriate under the circumstances. BlueWave, Dent, and Johnson are therefore ordered to respond to the Government's second set of interrogatories. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 4/28/2017.(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 ai.,
Civil Action No. 9: 14-cv-00230-RMG
(Consolidated with 9: ll-cv-1593-RMG and
ORDER and OPINION
This matter is before the Court on the Government's motion to compel defendants
BlueWave Healthcare Consultants, Inc. (HBlueWave"), Floyd Calhoun Dent, III, and Robert
Bradford Johnson to answer the United States' Second Set oflnterrogatories. (Dkt. No. 422.) The
United States and the defendants previously agreed that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 applies to
interrogatories to parties. (Dkt. No. 123.) Rule 33 provides that a party may serve on any other party
no more than twenty-five (25) written interrogatories. BlueWave, Dent, and Johnson have refused to
answer the Government's second set of interrogatories, arguing that the Government has exceeded
the twenty-five (25) interrogatories allowed by Rule 33.
Complex litigation matters such as this one often call for more than the twenty-five (25)
interrogatories permitted under Rule 33. For this reason, the Court hereby imposes a limit of onehundred (100) interrogatories which is more appropriate under the circumstances. BlueWave, Dent,
and Johnson are therefore ordered to respond to the Government's second set of interrogatories.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Court Judge
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?