Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00098/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00098-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 31:3729 False Claims Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. 

COLLEEN HERREN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MARSHALL MEDICAL CENTER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:12-cv-0098-JAM-KJN

ORDER

On March 2, 2016, an informal telephonic discovery conference was held in this matter 

before the undersigned to address the parties’ dispute regarding the temporal scope of discovery

in this action. Attorneys Brian Markovitz and Louisa Kirakosian appeared telephonically on 

behalf of relator plaintiff Colleen Herren. Attorneys Ryan Polk, Katrina Pagonis, and Kathryn 

Doi appeared telephonically on behalf of defendants. 

Based on the parties’ joint statement, other relevant filings, and arguments made during 

the telephonic conference, and for the reasons stated by the undersigned during the telephonic 

conference, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants shall produce discovery responsive to plaintiff’s requests relating to the 

period beginning on January 1, 2008, and ending on March 1, 2012.

////

Case 2:12-cv-00098-JAM-KJN Document 83 Filed 03/03/16 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

2. This order is without prejudice to a future request to expand the scope of discovery 

beyond March 1, 2012, made either after relator plaintiff has been granted leave to file 

an amended complaint that provides allegations showing that defendants’ alleged 

wrongful conduct continued to occur beyond March 1, 2012, or upon a showing by 

relator plaintiff that the allegations of the operative second amended complaint and the 

discovery that has been produced in this matter thus far show that defendants’ alleged 

wrongful conduct continued to occur beyond March 1, 2012.

1

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2016

KJN/amd

 

1 As noted during the telephonic conference, the undersigned does not make a determination at 

this time regarding whether the allegations of the operative second amended complaint are or are 

not adequate to support a showing that discovery relating to a time period beyond March 1, 2012,

is warranted.

Case 2:12-cv-00098-JAM-KJN Document 83 Filed 03/03/16 Page 2 of 2