ORDER AFTER INFORMAL TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE RE: DISCOVERY

(Doc. 27)

JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.

At the request of the plaintiff, the Court held an informal conference re: discovery dispute on April 7, 2017. At the conference, the parties agreed:

1. The depositions of the two employees of the defendant would not go forward at this time. Rather, the plaintiff may propound1 up to ten questions to each employee directed toward discovering the nature, extent and effect of the alleged conflict of interest. The plaintiff may not ask questions about the specifics of how and why the decisions were made or whether the decisions were correct.

The defendant agreed to provide substantive responses to questions on the relevant topic. After the employees provide these responses, if the plaintiff feels the responses fail to be responsive, counsel must meet and confer (and counsel SHALL make meeting and conferring a priority in their schedule), but, in the event they cannot resolve the dispute, the plaintiff SHALL seek a timely teleconference with the Court;

2. The deposition of the independent medical examiner will go forward on a date that is convenient to counsel, the doctor and the Court. The Court will be available by telephone during the deposition to rule, as necessary, on the propriety of questions asked and objections made. Toward this end, the Court clarifies that the plaintiff may ask questions limited to the issue of conflict of interest/bias. The plaintiff may not ask questions about why the doctor came to his/her medical opinions in the plaintiff's particular case.

3. Once the date for the doctor's deposition is known, counsel may renew their stipulation to amend the case schedule. The renewed stipulation should propose reasonable dates for the remaining case deadlines.

IT IS SO ORDERED.