Tuttobene v. The Assurance Group, Inc.
Filing
122
ORDER SETTING HEARING: The Magistrate Judge believes that an appointment of an expert witness would be the most efficient way to proceed in this case, and believes the firm of Carr Riggs & Ingram is the most appropriate. Provided they are willing to undertake the appointment of court expert, a hearing is set for 1:30 p.m., Monday, September 8, 2014 to finalize an appointment order for this firm. The lead auditor for the firm should attend this hearing. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 8/12/2014. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(ds)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
ERIC TUTTOBENE, et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs
)
)
v.
)
)
THE ASSURANCE GROUP, INC., et al., )
)
Defendants
)
No. 3:10-0978
Judge Sharp/Brown
Jury Demand
O R D E R
A telephone conference was held with the parties to
resolve the issue of an audit of payments by the Defendants to the
various
Plaintiffs.
(Docket
Entry
117),
Pursuant
the
to
the
parties
Magistrate
submitted
Judge’s
protocols
order
to
the
Magistrate Judge (Docket Entries 120 and 121).
Unfortunately, from the Magistrate Judge’s standpoint,
the submissions appeared to be ships passing in the night as there
was very little joint agreement. Accordingly, at the telephone
conference,
the
Magistrate
Judge
attempted
to
resolve
the
differences and to get an audit on track. As the Magistrate Judge
has pointed out several times before, this is a case that was filed
in 2010 and is now set for trial on March 31, 2015.
The Magistrate Judge has considered both a special master
under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 53, as well as an expert
witness under Rules of Evidence 706. The Magistrate Judge believes
that
an
appointment
of
an
expert
witness
would
be
the
most
efficient way to proceed in this case. The Magistrate Judge briefly
reviewed the web sites of the three firms suggested by the parties.
It appears that the firm of Carr Riggs & Ingram would be most
appropriate.
They
are
a
firm
that
advertises
expertise
in
litigation support to include special audits.
Provided the firm is willing to accept employment as a
court expert under Rule 706, the Magistrate Judge will appointment
them as the Court’s expert witness in this matter. The parties are
directed to transmit a copy of this order to the firm and to
schedule, as soon as practicable, a meeting with the firm to
determine whether they are willing to accept such an appointment
and to begin initial discussions about the scope of audit with a
best estimation for a completion of an expert report, and at least
a rough estimate of the costs, depending on the scope of the audit.
The Magistrate Judge would expect the audit report to
consider data from either 2004 or 2006 forward. The exact start
date would be determined at a later conference with the appointed
expert and the parties to (1) reconcile the information on 1099s
issued to the Plaintiffs; (2) compile records of all payments for
the benefit of Plaintiffs or their subagents to the Defendants by
any insurance company for which the Defendants provide services
that include payments to the Plaintiffs; (3) a report on all
deductions from the gross amounts determined in (2) above; (4) any
other examinations which the parties believe should be included, or
2
which the appointed expert firm
believe are necessary for a
complete expert report.
Provided Carr Riggs & Ingram is willing to undertake this
appointment, a hearing is set for 1:30 p.m., Monday, September 8,
2014, to finalize an appointment order for the firm. The lead
auditor for the firm should attend this hearing.
As an initial matter the reasonable costs of such an
audit will be borne by the Defendant. The final apportionment of
the cost of the audit will be determined by either the agreement of
the parties or by the Court following a resolution of the case.
It is so ORDERED.
/s/ Joe B. Brown
JOE B. BROWN
United States Magistrate Judge
3
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?