United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
PAIN CENTER OF SE INDIANA, LLC; INDIANA PAIN MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION CENTER, P.C.; and ANTHONY ALEXANDER, M.D., Plaintiffs,
ORIGIN HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS LLC; SSIMED (d/b/a SSIMED Holding, LLC); ORIGIN HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; JOHN DOES (1-50) inclusive; and JOHN DOES (1-100 inclusive, Defendants.
ENTRY ON PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTION TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S MAY 8, 2015 ENTRY
RICHARD L. YOUNG, Chief District Judge.
Plaintiffs, the Pain Center of SE Indiana, LLC, the Indiana Pain Medicine and Rehabilitation Center, P.C., and Anthony Alexander, M.D., brought this lawsuit against Defendants, SSIMED, d/b/a SSIMED Holding, LLC, Origin Healthcare Solutions, LLC, and Origin Holdings, Inc., alleging various counts of fraud and breach of contract. Plaintiffs now object to the Magistrate Judge's resolution (Filing No. 222 (hereinafter "May 8 Entry")) of several discovery disputes raised in Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel (Filing No. 205) concerning Defendants' responses to interrogatories and the resumption of two fact depositions. For the reasons stated below, the court OVERRULES in part Plaintiffs' objections and AFFIRMS in part the Magistrate Judge's Entry.
On February 13, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel the Defendants to Provide Sufficient Answers to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories, Redeposition of Mrs. Demetria Hilton [Pierce] and Remainder of Mrs. Joy Deckard's Deposition. On May 8, 2015, the Magistrate Judge granted in part, and denied in part, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiffs' motion to compel responses to Interrogatory Nos. 18 and 21, and denied Plaintiffs' motion to compel the depositions of Demetria Hilton Pierce and Joy Deckard. Plaintiffs object to these rulings. Plaintiffs also assign error because the Magistrate Judge did not address Plaintiffs' belated request for attorney's fees.
II. Standard of Review
A magistrate judge has broad discretion over matters of discovery. Jones v. City of Elkhart, 737 F.3d 1107, 1115-16 (7th Cir. 2013). The district court reviews nondispositive discovery decisions of a magistrate judge for clear error. Domanus v. Lewicki, 742 F.3d 290, 295 (7th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). In short, the court will not upset a magistrate judge's decision unless it runs contrary to law or leaves the court with a definite and firm conviction that the magistrate judge made a mistake. Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., 126 F.3d 926, 943 (7th Cir. 1997).
A. Interrogatory No. 18
Plaintiffs' Interrogatories numbered 12 through 18 sought the "actual dollar amount of claims and number of claims" captured within, submitted to, and submitted out of the "Client Center" for years 2003 through 2012. As the Magistrate Judge notes, the Client Center serves as the means by which customers ( i.e. Plaintiffs) and Defendants communicate claims data. The Magistrate Judge deciphered the process as follows:
(1) using Defendants' software and the client center, customers enter data for claims to be submitted to carriers; (2) customers create a daily "closing file" compiling that day's claims data for submission; (3) Defendants extract the claims data from the closing file and submit the claims to the carriers; (4) carriers transmit to Defendants "acknowledgments" for each claim that notify whether the claim was approved or denied, and the reasons for the denial; and (5) Defendants transmit the acknowledgments to the customer's client center.
(May 8 Entry at 12). The court relies on the Magistrate Judge's best guess as to the information Plaintiffs seek:
(1) claims that customers created for submission to carriers by using the subject software and client center, and by the generation of closing files; (2) claims that Defendants submitted to carriers through extraction from customers' closing files; and (3) claims that were denied by carriers, as reflected in acknowledgements from carriers that were transmitted by Defendants to customers' client centers.
( Id. at 14).
Defendants made primarily boilerplate objections to Interrogatories 12 through 18 and simply referred Plaintiffs to information either previously produced or ...