Sharp Memorial Hospital v. Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Utah, 16-cv-02493-JM (RNB). (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20180530b74
Visitors: 24
Filed: May 29, 2018
Latest Update: May 29, 2018
Summary: ORDER RE: JOINT MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF DISCOVERY DISPUTE (ECF No. 33) ROBERT N. BLOCK , Magistrate Judge . On May 23, 2018, Plaintiff Sharp Memorial Hospital ("Plaintiff") and Defendant Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Utah ("Defendant") filed a Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute. (ECF No. 33.) Defendant seeks to modify the Scheduling Order (1) to extend the non-expert discovery deadline to permit it to conduct an additional Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) depo
Summary: ORDER RE: JOINT MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF DISCOVERY DISPUTE (ECF No. 33) ROBERT N. BLOCK , Magistrate Judge . On May 23, 2018, Plaintiff Sharp Memorial Hospital ("Plaintiff") and Defendant Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Utah ("Defendant") filed a Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute. (ECF No. 33.) Defendant seeks to modify the Scheduling Order (1) to extend the non-expert discovery deadline to permit it to conduct an additional Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) depos..
More
ORDER RE: JOINT MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF DISCOVERY DISPUTE (ECF No. 33)
ROBERT N. BLOCK, Magistrate Judge.
On May 23, 2018, Plaintiff Sharp Memorial Hospital ("Plaintiff") and Defendant Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Utah ("Defendant") filed a Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute. (ECF No. 33.) Defendant seeks to modify the Scheduling Order (1) to extend the non-expert discovery deadline to permit it to conduct an additional Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) deposition of Plaintiff, and (2) to extend the motion cut-off date to permit it to bring any motion, if necessary, resulting from the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. (Id. at 2.)
Having reviewed the Joint Motion, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant's motion for the reasons argued by Plaintiff. Defendant has failed to convince the Court that good cause exists to modify the Scheduling Order or to allow Defendant to conduct a second Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. Further, the Court finds Plaintiff's offer to stipulate to the authenticity of the records and to provide a declaration to be sufficient.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
