Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/cod;;1:16-cv-02723_de172> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 5 of
5
with 100 items per page.
- cod;;1:16-cv-02723_de172 RegisterActionDate "2020-06-08" @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-02723_de172 RegisterActionDescriptionText "ORDER granting 170 Motion to Compel. Neither party complied with the Courts limit of three pages or less. Nor did the Court grant permission to file a reply brief. The Court previously ordered the defendant to disclose the facts on which it relies to show the existence of an express or implied in fact contract. The plaintiffs apparently continue to represent (in the three pages I read) that defendant has not complied. Defendant apparently continues to represent (in the three pages I read) that they have complied. I have looked at the discovery response in Exhibit A to defendant's response. ECF No. 171-1. For example, in response to Interrogatory No. 10, which is the CD5F0AC plaintiff's interrogatory asking for the facts on which defendant relies to show the there was a contract for the services provided to [redacted] CD5F0AC (minor), defendant provides, in addition to information about the date and nature of the service and its billing to the Cowens' insurer (Med-Pay) (1) an Authorization and Consent form signed by the patient's mother; (2) an Assignment of Benefit form signed by the patient's father; (3) a description of the parents' assistance in pursuing appeals with their insurer; (4) a description of defendant's efforts to recover available funds from Med-Pay; (5) a description of defendant's effort to resolve the matter by settlement; (6) defendant's efforts and lack of efforts to collect the bill against the Cowens. Whether those facts are sufficient to establish a contract is a matter of law, but those are the facts that defendant has. Presumably the plaintiff can now file a motion for summary judgment and argue that those facts do not support a finding of a contract. Defendant can respond and say that they do support a finding of a contract or a finding that there is a genuine dispute about a material fact that precludes summary judgment. The defendant cannot, however, oppose or support summary judgment on any facts or evidence not provided in response to Interrogatory 10, whether its theory is express or implied in fact contract. There does not appear to be any reason for the plaintiff to continue to complain about an insufficient response to its interrogatory. The Court will not authorize class-wide discovery at this time, and it has made it reasonably clear that it is unlikely to certify a class in this case. By Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 6/8/2020. Text Only Entry(rbjsec.) (Entered: 06/08/2020)" @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-02723_de172 AdministrativeID "173" @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-02723_de172 OntologyLabel order @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-02723_de172 hasReferenceToOtherEntry cod;;1:16-cv-02723_de169 @default.