Securities/Commodities | Florida Southern
- Order (PAPERLESS or pdf attached)
PAPERLESS ORDER re 6694 MOTION to Stay Response Deadlines and Consideration of CIGNA's Motions [D.E. 6685, 6686, 6687, and 6691] Pending Objections and Evidentiary Hearing on the Special Accounting Master's Report filed by Managed Care Advisory Group, LLC, 6714 Order
This Order supplements the Post-Hearing Administrative Order [ECF No. 6714] concerning the memoranda of law which Defendant Cigna Healthcare and Managed Care Advisory Group will be submitting in connection with the Undersigned's consideration of MCAG's motion to stay response deadlines (for myriad motions filed by Cigna).
In the memoranda, the parties shall also respond to the following:
During the hearing, Cigna argued that MCAG has no ability to object (or respond directly in any way) to the Special Accounting Master's report because MCAG is not technically a party to this lawsuit. On the other hand, Cigna advised, in response to a question from the Undersigned, that MCAG could oppose its myriad motions and assert its objections and challenges to the SAM report in its responses to the motions.
Therefore, MCAG's not-yet-filed responses to the motions could be deemed an indirect objection to the SAM's report to the extent that the responses challenged the SAM report relied upon by Cigna.
In addition, Cigna further explained that it believed MCAG could take discovery in connection with its responses (and that Cigna could pursue discovery, as well). And Cigna also said it has no objection to an evidentiary hearing concerning its motions (such as a renewed motion to enforce the settlement agreement, a motion for sanctions [against MCAG] and a motion for sanctions for litigation abuse [again, against MCAG]).
Given this background, what practical difference does it make if MCAG lodges its opposition position and challenges to the SAM report as an objection to the report itself or in opposition responses to Cigna's myriad motions (which rely heavily, though not exclusively) on the SAM report? Either way, the Court will be made aware of the specifics of MCAG's opposition and challenges.
MCAG is not a party in this lawsuit, but Cigna is not objecting to MCAG's ability to file responses to the motions which level substantial allegations of misconduct against MCAG. And Cigna discussed a proposed discovery schedule, including written discovery and deposition, to prepare for an evidentiary hearing. This discussion assumed that MCAG would be participating in the discovery.
But if MCAG is not a party, then how would it be able to propound discovery in this lawsuit?
Thus, from a bottom line, common sense, end-of-the-day perspective, what difference, if any, would it make if MCAG could not technically file an "objection" to the SAM report (even though it already did the other day) but could raise the same substantive challenges it could have made in a party-filed objection in the responses to Cigna's motions?
In the classic words of law professors everywhere, "please discuss." Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 11/26/2020. (JG)
Trademark | California Northern
Notice of Voluntary Dismissal
Personal Property: Other | California Northern
Clerk's Notice ~Util - Set Motion and Deadlines/Hearings
**AMENDED CLERK'S NOTICE RE: HEARING ON 429 MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES**
Pursuant to this notice, the hearing on 429 MOTION for Attorney Fees - Notice of Motion and Motion for Attorneys Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses, and Service Awards is SET for Monday, February 8, 2021 at 1:30 PM before Judge Lucy H. Koh.
(This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (kedS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/25/2020)
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS