UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR
THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
.
_________________________________________ | | ) | | | | ) | | | UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA, | ) | CA 98-475 JJF
| | | ) | | |
Plaintiff, | ) | | | | ) | | |
vs. | ) | | |
| ) |
| | FEDERATION OF PHYSICIANS AND
| ) |
| | DENTISTS, INC., | ) |
| | | ) |
| |
Defendant. | ) |
| | | ) |
| | _________________________________________
| ) | |
PLAINTIFF'S ANSWERING BRIEF IN
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S
MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED SCHEDULING
ORDER
Dated: November 13, 1998
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
RICHARD G. ANDREWS
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
Virginia Gibson-Mason (DSB # 3699)
Assistant United States Attorney
1201 Market Street, Suite 1100
Wilmington, DE 19801
Tel.: (302) 573-6277
Melvin A. Schwarz
Special Counsel for Enforcement
U.S. Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
601 D Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Tel.: (202) 305-1210 |
Steven Kramer
Richard S. Martin
Denise E. Biehn
Michael D. Farber
Attorneys
U.S. Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
325 Seventh Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Tel.: (202) 307-0997 |
Page i.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS..................................................................................................................i
TABLE OF
CITATIONS.................................................................................................................ii
I.
Introduction..................................................................................................................................2
II. Defendant's Proposed Schedule
Is Premised On Incorrect Assumptions .......................................3
A.
Defendant's Depiction of the Length of the Government's Pre-Complaint
Investigation is
Incorrect....................................................................................................3
B. The
Substance of the Department's Short, Pre-Complaint Investigation
is Already Known to Defendant's
Counsel..........................................................................4
C. The
Primary Issue In Dispute Defendant's Concerted Action....................................................6
III. Defendant's Proposed Order Setting Limits on Depositions Would Unjustly
Hinder the United States' Ability to Prepare for
Trial.....................................................................8
IV. Defendant's Proposal to Designate this Case as Complex Should Be
Rejected..............................11
A.
Type of Action.......................................................................................................................12
B.
Number of Parties..................................................................................................................13
C.
Nature and Number of Issues Pled.........................................................................................13
D. Nature of Factual Issues.........................................................................................................13
E.
Nature and Extent of Discovery ..............................................................................................13
F.
Need for Experts....................................................................................................................14
G.
Nature and Extent of Pre-Trial Issues or Other Special Difficulties...........................................14
V.
Conclusion..................................................................................................................................14
TABLE OF CITATIONS
Cases
DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb
Co., 894 F. Supp. 804, 809
(D. Del.
1995), aff'd on other grounds, 62 F.3d 1397 (Fed. Cir.
1995) .........................................9
F.T.C. v. Indiana Federation of Dentists, 476 U.S. 447
(1986) ..........................................................7
Federal Trade Comm'n. v.
Superior Court Trial Lawyers Ass'n., 493 U.S. 411 (1990)........................7
In re ML-LEE ACQUISITION FUND II, L.P., 859 F. Supp. 765, 768 (D. Del.
1994)...................10
National Society of Professional Engineers v. United States, 435 U.S. 679
(1978)...............................8
Scovill v. Sunbeam Corp., 61 F.R.D. 598 (D. Del.
1973)....................................................................9
United States v. Diamond Industries, Inc., 145 F.R.D. 48 (D. Del.
1992).....................................12, 14
United States v. Witmer, 835 F. Supp. 201 (M.D. Pa. 1993), vacated on other
grounds,
835 F. Supp.
208, aff'd, 30 F.3d 1489 (3d Cir. 1994) .............................................................4,
10
Vogel v. American Soc'y of Appraisers, 744 F.2d 598
(7th Cir. 1984)..............................................12
Statutes
15 U.S.C.§§
1311-1314 ....................................................................................................................3
28 U.S.C. § 473(a)(2)(B)(i) and
(ii)...................................................................................................12
Rules
D. Del. LR
16.1(a).......................................................................................................................11, 12
Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(2).......................................................................................................................9
Page iii
Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(1)(B)....................................................................................................................5
Other Authorities
Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission Statements of Antitrust Enforcement
Policy
in Health Care, 4 Trade Reg. Rep. (CCH)
¶ 13,153.....................................................................6, 7
.
Page 2.
I. Introduction
The
United States submits this answering brief in opposition to defendant Federation of
Physicians and Dentists' (the "Federation's") motion for entry of its proposed discovery schedule.
(D.I. 18). The United States strenuously opposes defendant's extended schedule because (1)
there is simply no need to take anywhere close to 18 months to prepare this case for trial, and
(2)
the public will be disserved by such an unnecessary delay in resolution of a case that affects
the
availability and cost of health care for the citizens of Delaware and the American public
generally.
The only material factual dispute in this case is whether defendant and nearly all orthopedists
in
Delaware, who joined defendant, acted in concert to avoid a reduction in their fees by
collectively
boycotting Blue Cross Blue Shield of Delaware ("Blue Cross"). The evidence cited in the
complaint makes that concerted action plain, and the indisputable fact is that defendant and
its
members--nearly all of whom defendant's counsel represents--presently have (and have had)
that
information in their possession. The only other substantive discovery that defendant claims a
need
for is from Blue Cross; that can be accomplished within a few months.
Defendant's proposed pretrial order is based almost entirely on its contention
that the
United States has been investigating the activities that are the subject of this case since
November
1997. That contention is both false and irrelevant. In reality, the Department of Justice's
(the
"Department's") investigative discovery of defendant's and its members' activities in
Delaware
took place over only about four months--not ten months, as asserted by defendant.
Moreover,
virtually all of that four months of discovery focused on obtaining documents and testimony
from
the very orthopedists and Federation management whom defense counsel represents.
Page 3.
Defendant's proposed discovery schedule is not only based on a false premise,
but it is
hopelessly inconsistent. The defendant seeks to limit depositions to 10 per side while
claiming
that the defendant needs 18 months to accomplish this task. If a 10-deposition limit were
appropriate (which it is not), these could easily be completed in 18 weeks, not 18 months.
There
is simply no valid reason for defendant's requested certification of "complexity" and the
protracted delay defendant proposes.
II. Defendant's Proposed Schedule is Premised on
Incorrect Assumptions
A. Investigation is Incorrect
Defendant's claimed need for an August 2000 trial date is premised on the
notion that it
should have a period of time for discovery equal to the amount of time that the United States
took
to investigate this case. In support of this argument, defendant wrongly asserts that,
"[S]ince
November 1997, the Government has been issuing document requests and taking depositions
to
gather information and prepare its case against the FPD." Defendant's Brief (D.I. 19) at 2. It
is
true that the United States has investigated the Federation since November 1997. However,
the
investigation that commenced in November, 1997, focused on the activities of the Federation
and
its members in New Haven, Connecticut--not Delaware. Indeed, the United States
was unaware
of defendant's anticompetitive activities in Delaware until late February 1998.
Issuance of civil investigative demands ("CIDs"), as authorized by the Antitrust
Civil
Process Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1311-1314, to obtain information about the activities
underlying this
.
Page 4.
case, first occurred on February 25, 1998.1 Initial production of documents by most parties,
including the vast majority of Delaware Federation members represented by defense
counsel,
occurred on March 17, 1998. All investigative discovery concluded when the final two
investigative depositions were completed on June 9, 1998.
The fact
is that the Department investigated those activities for a little over four months,
from the end of February, 1998, until early June 1998.2 Therefore, even accepting defendant's
premise that it needs discovery of what it already knows, the United States' proposed
pretrial
schedule provides defendant with even more time than the Department took to obtain its
pre-
complaint discovery.
B. Known to Defendant's Counsel
Not
only was the Department's pre-complaint investigation far shorter than defendant
asserts, but the vast majority of the information obtained by the Department during its brief
investigation is already in defense counsel's files. Defendant's counsel represents 40 of the
45
Delaware orthopedic surgeons to whom CIDs for documents were issued in late February 1998.
All but 326 pages of documents produced by physicians to the Department during its
investigation
have been produced by physicians represented by defendant's counsel. During its
investigation,
the Department also obtained 1,154 pages of documents from the four major health insurers
.
Page 5.
operating in Delaware. Had defendant agreed to a protective order in a timely fashion,3 the
United States would have voluntarily produced, weeks ago, all of the documents obtained
thus
far.
During
the spring of 1998, the Department took investigative depositions of 18 persons.
With one exception, all were defendant's employees or representatives, defendant's members,
or
the office managers of defendant's members. Defendant's counsel represented 15 of those
deposed, attended the depositions of 14 of them, took extensive notes during the
depositions
attended, and accompanied almost all persons deposed when they reviewed their transcripts.
Pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1)(B), the United States has since voluntarily provided to
defendant's
counsel transcripts of those 15 investigative depositions.4
Page 6.
C. The Primary
Issue In Dispute Is Defendant's Concerted Action
This
case hinges on whether plaintiff can prove that defendant and its members acted in
concert in opposing Blue Cross's offer of reduced fees for orthopedic services. Defendant's
only
suggestions to the contrary (in its brief in support of its discovery schedule (D.I. 19)) are its
allusions to purported defenses requiring discovery of: (1) the United States' policies on
unionization of physicians and antitrust enforcement in health care, including "the facts
underlying
the Government's promulgation, interpretation, and enforcement of the [third-party
messenger]
system set forth in the [Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission Statements of
Antitrust Enforcement Policy in Health Care, 4 Trade Reg. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 13,153 at
20,831
(August 28, 1996)]" (the "Policy Statements"), Defendant's Brief at 9-10; and (2) "issues
relating
to the structure, vagaries, and dynamics of the health care market and the conduct of health
care
providers and insurers." Defendant's Brief at 10.
These
purported discovery needs do not conceivably justify defendant's proposed
18-month discovery schedule. The only issue is whether defendant and its members acted
jointly
to boycott Blue Cross's efforts to lower fees it paid to Delaware orthopedists. The very
Policy
Statements on which defendant seeks to rely emphasize that this is a question of fact in each
case:
The key issue in any messenger model arrangement is whether the
arrangement creates or facilitates an agreement among competitors on prices
or
price-related terms. Determining whether there is such an agreement is a
question
of fact
in each case.
Page 7.
Policy Statements at 20,831. To assist in evaluating this question, the Policy Statements set
forth
a framework for analysis to determine
whether
the agent facilitates collective decision-making by network providers,
rather
than independent, unilateral, decisions. In particular, the Agencies will
examine whether the agent coordinates the providers' responses to a
particular
proposal, disseminates to network providers the views or intentions of
other
network providers as to the proposal, expresses an opinion on the terms
offered,
collectively negotiates for the providers . . . . If the agent engages in such
activities, the arrangement may amount to a per se illegal price-fixing
agreement.
Id. (footnote omitted). SeeFederal Trade Comm'n. v. Superior Court
Trial Lawyers Ass'n., 493
U.S. 411, 432-36 (1990). Thus, the Policy Statements demonstrate that the central issue in
this
case is whether the activities of the defendant and its members amount to concerted action,
which
they in no sense condone. The course of drafting of the Policy Statements, which in any
event
cannot--and do not purport to--displace this Court's application of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act,
is patently immaterial and irrelevant to this issue.5
Similarly, defendant's asserted need for broad discovery "relating to the
structure,
vagaries, and dynamics of the health care market and the conduct of health care providers
and
insurers" is a transparent effort to justify the dilatory discovery schedule it seeks. The
primary
issue in dispute in this case is whether defendant and its Delaware members engaged in
concerted
action; defendant's claimed need to engage in the quoted, far ranging discovery is simply a
red
herring. The nature of competition in these markets has no bearing on the [il]legality of
defendant's actions. SeeId.; seealso, F.T.C. v.
Indiana Federation of Dentists, 476 U.S. 447
Page 8.
(1986) (rejecting as a matter of law that Federation's efforts to assert "quality of care" defenses
to
its members concerted refusal to provide patient x-rays to insurers); National Society
of
Professional Engineers v. United States, 435 U.S. 679 (1978) (rejecting alleged
justifications for
concerted, anticompetitive actions which were not related to the promotion of competition in
the
particular market at issue).
III. United
States' Ability to Prepare for Trial
While
claiming that this case is complex, defendant nevertheless proposes that the Court
establish a presumptive limit of ten depositions per side. In support of this proposal,
defendant
argues that, because the Department took CID depositions during its investigation, allowing
plaintiff more than ten depositions in this case would be "unreasonably cumulative and
duplicative." Defendant's Brief at 14. The defendant also proposes, "for similar reasons,"
that
the Court issue an order prohibiting plaintiff from "deposing the [defendant] or
[defendant's]
members and associated persons that it previously deposed through the issuance of CIDs."
Id. at
15. Neither of defendant's proposed limitations is suited to this case.
In
conducting its investigation of whether the Federation and its Delaware orthopedic
surgeon members had violated the antitrust laws, the Department deposed 18 individuals,
pursuant to CIDs, between March 14, 1998 and May 20, 1998. The information obtained
during
its investigation not only enabled the United States to allege with great specificity the misdeeds
of
defendant in the complaint, but will doubtless also be the source of evidence at trial. But
the
investigative depositions are no substitute for post-complaint depositions in preparation for
trial.
Page 9.
The
plaintiff is certainly not seeking "unreasonably cumulative or duplicative" discovery
by seeking to preserve the ability to take, in preparation for trial, more than ten depositions, or
to
depose individuals who have been deposed pursuant to CIDs during the Department's
investigation. The defendant simply has no basis for asserting otherwise.6 There is no dispute
among the parties that at least 50-60 individuals, including Federation representatives,
Federation
members, and office managers that work with Federation members likely have information
related
to disputed issues in this case.7 The United States does not anticipate that it will need to take
the
depositions of all of these individuals, but the number of individuals involved in the
concerted
action and their varying involvement in and recollections of specific activities compel the
United
States to preserve the ability to take more than ten depositions in order to adequately prepare
for
trial--a trial for which defendant has reserved the right to present a witness list of up to 20
Page 10.
persons, while rejecting United States' proposal for exchanges of witness lists during discovery
to
help focus discovery.
The
United States must also retain the ability to depose some of the individuals that it
initially deposed pursuant to CID during the course of its investigation to ensure "full, fair,
and
complete discovery," In re ML-LEE ACQUISITION FUND II, L.P., 859 F. Supp.
765, 768 (D.
Del. 1994), in this action. Depositions taken in preparation for trial are different in nature
and
purpose than those taken pursuant to CIDs in the course of this investigation. In the
investigation
of the Federation and its Delaware members, the Department used CID investigative
depositions
to gather as much information as quickly and efficiently as possible to determine whether a
violation had occurred during a time when the possible need for expedited proceedings and
preliminary injunctive relief loomed large.8 In this situation, many of the investigative depositions
were taken without any systematic review of all potentially relevant documents and without
knowledge of defendant's factual defenses now reflected in its Amended Answer.
The
United States will use post-complaint depositions of some persons who were deposed
during the investigation--several of whom are central figures in the conspiracy--to prepare
the
case adequately for trial. Among other functions, case depositions will enable plaintiff to:
(1) gather additional facts following a systematic analysis of all relevant documents
(including
additional documents from defendant and non-parties) and defendant's claims, (2) establish
foundations for the admission of evidence, (3) test defendant's now-asserted defenses, and (4)
pin
Page 11.
down potential witnesses on points that may be used by the United States in cross-examination.
For these basic reasons, the Court should reject defendant's proposed limitations on
depositions.
Moreover, any ruling limiting plaintiff's ability to take case depositions of those
deposed
during the investigation would have the perverse future effects of (1) unduly protracting
investigative depositions to assure fuller coverage of the issues, at the cost of efficiency and
burden on both the Department and the witness; and (2) forcing the Department not to
depose,
during an investigation, most of those persons who appear to be most centrally involved to
avoid
being precluded from taking their depositions, after their defenses are fully asserted, in a
resulting
federal court litigation.
IV. Defendant's Proposal to
Designate this Case as Complex Should Be Rejected
The
purpose of defendant's freshly minted view of the supposed "complexity" of this case
is to rationalize its extraordinarily lengthy discovery schedule, leading to trial commencing
in
August 2000.9
However, as defendant knows, unless this case is certified as "complex,"
defendant's discovery schedule will not comply with the requirements of D. Del. LR 16.2(c)
and
the Civil Justice Reform Act ("CJRA").10SeeUnited States v. Diamond Industries,
Inc., 145
F.R.D. 48, 49 (D. Del. 1992).
When a
party seeks a determination of "complexity," the district court "is obligated to
engage in an analysis of certain considerations which are set forth in the Local Rules for the
District of Delaware." Id., citing D. Del. LR 16.1(a)(1) and (2). "[T]he
Court must respond to
the dictates of the CJRA and only determine a case complex when such a finding is clearly
warranted on the factors enumerated in Local Rule 16.1(a)(2)." United States v.
Diamond
Industries, Inc., 145 F.R.D. at 50. A brief application of these factors to this case
shows
defendant's request for a certification of complexity falls far short of meeting this standard
and
Page 12. confirms that defendant's
request stems from its attempt to rationalize its apparent desire to put
off trial as long as possible.
A. Type of
Action
The
defendant suggests that the case should be certified as complex because it is an
antitrust enforcement action. This Court, however, has recognized that "[t]he nature of an
enforcement action does not alone merit a determination of complexity." Diamond
Industries,
145 F.R.D. at 49. Indeed, some antitrust cases are of "Doric simplicity," Vogel v.
American
Soc'y of Appraisers, 744 F.2d 598 (7th Cir. 1984), and this case, for
reasons discussed above, falls
toward the simple, rather than complex, end of the spectrum.
B. Number of
Parties
In this
action, the United States is suing only one entity, the Federation of Physicians and
Dentists. Thus, the number of parties creates no complexity.
C. Nature and
Number of Issues Pled
As
noted previously, defendant's amended answer (D.I. 11) confirms that the only real
issue in dispute is whether the Federation and its members acted in concert. Resolution of this
straightforward legal issue surely does not warrant a determination of complexity.
SeeDiamond
Industries, 145 F.R.D. at 49.
D. Nature of Factual Issues
Although the evidence recited in the United States' complaint raises serious
doubt about
whether there is any genuine factual issue in dispute, even giving full credence to the factual
assertions in the amended answer, there is a need to resolve here only whether the actions of
the
Federation and its members over several months were concerted. The resolution of any
such
Page 13. factual issues does not
approach the level of complexity justifying a trial scheduled two years after
the case was filed. Id.
E. Nature and Extent of Discovery
Defendant's claims about the "mounds and mounds" of evidence to be obtained
and the
"substantial discovery" to be undertaken in this case, Defendant's Brief at 20, are
particularly
suspect when viewed alongside its concurrently proposed, presumptive limit on the number
of
depositions to be taken by both sides. Id. at 13-14. Moreover, as explained in section
II of this
brief, most of the information related to the allegedly disputed facts in this action involves
defendant and its Delaware members and is already in possession of defense counsel.
Defendant's
only significant discovery target is Blue Cross. Defendant's anticipation that Blue Cross or
any
other discovery target will be a "hostile" source, id. at 10, is "typical of most cases
filed in district
courts and certainly do[es] not support a determination that the discovery process in this case
is
so unique as to merit a designation of this case as complex." Diamond Industries, 145
F.R.D. at
at 50. No such antagonism, assuming it occurred, could necessitate delay for more than a
year.
F. Need for Experts
The
parties have, in their respective proposed discovery schedules, provided for discovery
related to experts. Should there be a genuine factual dispute about the concerted acts of
defendant's members so that a trial is necessary, some expert testimony may be adduced by
both
sides. But as this Court has observed, "[M]ost cases in district courts rely on expert
testimony,
however, this does not render a case complex." Id.
Page 14.
G. Nature and Extent of Pre-Trial Issues or Other Special Difficulties
In
support of its request for a determination of complexity, defendant has cited no
anticipated pretrial issues or other special difficulties that would warrant a determination of
complexity.
V. Conclusion
Plaintiff, for the reasons specified above, requests that the Court reject
defendant's request
for an 18-month discovery schedule, its related request for a certification of complexity, and
its
contradictory proposed limitation on depositions. The defendant has been aware that this
case
was likely headed to Court since June 1, 1998, and it has had virtually all of the relevant
information in its possession since the government began its inquiry. There is no need to
prolong
this case past the Court's standard schedule and there are many reasons to expedite this matter
of
substantial importance to consumers of physicians' services in Delaware and elsewhere. For all
the reasons described above, the United States requests that the Court reject defendant's
proposed scheduling order and enter the United States' proposed scheduling order to
govern
pretrial activities in this case.
Dated: November 13, 1998
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
RICHARD G. ANDREWS
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
/s/
By: Virginia Gibson-Mason (DSB # 3699)
Assistant United States Attorney
1201 Market Street, Suite 1100
Wilmington, DE 19801
Tel.: (302)573-6277
Facsimile: (302)573-6220
/s/
Melvin A. Schwarz
Special Counsel for Enforcement
U.S. Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
601 D Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Tel.: (202) 305-1210
Facsimile: (202) 514-1629 |
/s/
Steven Kramer
Richard S. Martin
Denise E. Biehn
Michael D. Farber
Attorneys
U.S. Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
325 Seventh Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Tel.: (202) 307-0997
Facsimile: (202) 514-1517
|
FOOTNOTES
1 A CID is a form
of administrative subpoena, that is used as "a pre-complaint discovery tool" and is "made available
by statute in several different contexts," including antitrust investigations. United States v.
Witmer, 835 F. Supp. 201, 203-05 (M.D. Pa. 1993), vacated on other grounds, 835 F.
Supp. 208, aff'd, 30 F.3d 1489 (3rd Cir. 1994).
2 During this
four-month period, defense counsel delayed, for a month, the investigative deposition of the
Federation's Executive Director, Jack Seddon.
3 Defendant's
dilatory responses to plaintiff's attempts to agree on a Rule 26(c)(7) umbrella protective order are
instructive because they appear symptomatic of an overall lackadaisical approach to this case that
is embodied in defendant's proposed 18-month discovery schedule. The United States sent
defendant's counsel a draft Rule 26(c)(7) protective order on September 15, 1998, in part, to
promote expedited disclosure to defendant of the limited amount of information produced by
some non-parties during the investigation. At the October 1 Rule 26(f) conference among
counsel, defense counsel said he had found nothing disagreeable in the proposed protective order,
but was awaiting his client's approval. After additional requests from the United States for a
formal response to the proposed protective order, and after finally agreeing in principle to the
United States' proposed draft on the morning of October 14, on the afternoon of October 14,
defendant's counsel raised "concerns" about the proposed order that precluded filing the order for
the Court's consideration along with the Proposed Discovery Plan. (D.I. 13). Defendant's counsel
finally conveyed its proposed revisions to the United States on October 21, but was unavailable to
confer until October 28. On October 29, the United States sent its counterproposal to defendant,
but it has not heard further from defense counsel on whether the parties have an agreement.
Defendant's inaction continues to delay disclosure to defendant, pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1)(B), of
documents obtained during the government's investigation from third parties that are not
represented by defense counsel.
4 Two of the three
depositions taken of persons not represented by defendant's counsel are depositions of defendant's
members and together total 250 pages of testimony. The transcript of the third deposition--the
only one taken of someone unconnected with defendant--totals 15 pages of testimony. As with
the documents of the few third parties not represented by defense counsel, the United States will
voluntarily provide defendant the three transcripts presently not in the possession of defense
counsel after defendant agrees to a protective order and the deponents have had a reasonable
opportunity to designate confidential information.
5 Moreover, the
Department has no policy concerning the unionization of physicians and the Department's antitrust
enforcement history in the health care industry is a matter of public record. Therefore, even if
there were any relevance to such information (and there is none), there is no need for discovery to
determine the Department's actions in this area.
6 The plaintiff has
not yet served on defendant any notices of depositions of any of its members or representatives.
It is premature, therefore, to argue that plaintiff will seek "unreasonably cumulative or
duplicative" discovery. Addressing defendant's proposed limitations on depositions at this point in
the litigation is premature because the Court "has not been presented with legal issues grounded
in established facts that require a judicial decision in order to settle a dispute." DuPont Merck
Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 894 F. Supp. 804, 809 (D. Del. 1995),
aff'd on other grounds, 62 F.3d 1397 (Fed. Cir. 1995); see also
Scovill v. Sunbeam Corp., 61 F.R.D. 598, 603 (D. Del. 1973) (refusing to enter a protective
order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) preventing deposition on the grounds that it would be
premature to do so). The defendant can move for a protective order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)
if it believes that the particular discovery sought by plaintiff is unreasonably cumulative or
duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or
less expensive. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2).
7 Defendant's
Initial Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures list among those likely to have discoverable information: all
Delaware members of the [Federation] and their office managers." Defendant's Initial Rule
26(a)(1) Disclosures at 2. These groups alone total over 50 persons, aside from defendant's own
employees and representatives.
8 This type of
investigative activity is what Congress sought to promote in authorizing the issuance of CIDs.
See Witmer, 835 F. Supp. at 206 (stating, in analyzing the CID authorization contained
in the False Claims Act, that "Congress intended the CID to be a tool that would allow the
Government to gather information about potential fraud against the Government quickly and
efficiently.").
9 The defendant, in
its brief supporting its proposed discovery schedule, for the first time seeks to certify this case as
"complex" pursuant to D. Del. LR 16.1(a). Defendant opted not to seek such a certification in
either its answer (D.I. 7), filed on September 22, 1998; at the Rule 26(f) conference of counsel
held on October 1, 1998; or in its amended answer (D.I. 11), filed on October 13, 1998. In fact,
it was not until well after the Rule 26(f) conference – at which defendant proposed its discovery
schedule – that defendant first raised the "complexity" of the case as a reason for its proposed
schedule.
10 The CJRA
requires district courts to schedule cases for trial "within eighteen months after the filing of the
complaint, unless a judicial officer certifies that (i) the demands of the case and its complexity
make such a trial date incompatible with serving the ends of justice; or (ii) the trial cannot
reasonably be held within such time because of the complexity of the case or the number or
complexity of pending criminal cases." 28 U.S.C. § 473(a)(2)(B)(i) and (ii).
|