Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03617/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03617-15/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; THE 

STATES OF ARKANSAS, 

CALIFORNIA, DELAWARE, FLORIDA, 

GEORGIA, HAWAII, ILLINOIS, 

INDIANA, LOUISIANA, MICHIGAN, 

MASSACHUSETTS, MONTANA, 

NEVADA, NEW HAMPSHIRE, NEW 

JERSEY, NEW MEXICO, NEW YORK, 

OKLAHOMA, RHODE ISLAND, 

TENNESSEE, TEXAS, VIRGINIA, AND 

WISCONSIN, AND THE DISTRICT OF 

COLUMBIA, ex rel. JOHN DOE, Relator, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

BIOTRONIK, INC. and WESTERN 

MEDICAL, INC., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:09-cv-3617-KJM-EFB 

ORDER 

 Relator (and relator’s counsel Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff, LLP’s (“KCT”)) have filed 

motions for attorneys’ fees. Those motions are pending before the district judge and are set for 

hearing on April 24, 2015. The relator has also filed a discovery motion to compel the production 

of information that the relator intends to use in support of the attorneys’ fee motion. Specifically, 

the relator moves to compel production of defendant’s relevant billing records. That motion to 

compel is set for hearing on March 11, 2015. ECF No. 113. On March 3, 2015, defendant filed 

Case 2:09-cv-03617-KJM-EFB Document 116 Filed 03/05/15 Page 1 of 3
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

an ex parte application to continue the hearing on the motion to compel to a date in mid-April or 

later. ECF No. 114. Defendant contends that a continuance is necessary because its lead counsel, 

Christopher Myers, underwent surgery in February and will be unavailable during the month of 

March. Id. at 1-3. Relator and KCR oppose the motion. ECF No. 115. For the reasons set forth 

below, the motion for continuance is denied. 

 Defendant is represented by an international law firm that lists having more than 1,000 

attorneys in the United States and abroad.1 Other attorneys from the firm have appeared in this 

action on behalf of defendant. See, e.g., ECF No. 115. Moreover, defendant has failed to 

demonstrate that another attorney from the firm is incapable of handling what appears to be a 

relatively routine discovery motion. See Nielsen v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. C 05-1759SBA, 

2006 WL 778627, at * 1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2006) (“Indeed, at least one other attorney of [the 

defense firm] has already appeared before this Court in the above-captioned matter and the Court 

assumes that this attorney, as well as the other members of Defendant’s counsel’s firm, are 

members of the bar and are fully qualified to try this case.”). 

On the other hand, granting the requested continuance would disrupt the scheduling order 

issued by the assigned district judge. ECF Nos. 107, 108. The relator seeks the information at 

issue for use in the motions for attorneys’ fees that are pending before the district judge. See ECF 

Nos. 80, 91. The current scheduling order requires the relator and KTC’s reply briefs to be 

submitted by March 27, 2015. ECF Nos. 107, 108. Continuing the hearing on the motion to 

compel until mid-April (when Mr. Myers will apparently be available) would leave inadequate 

time for use of the evidence in the discovery motions.2

 Accordingly, the request to continue the 

hearing is denied. 

 The parties’ joint statement regarding the motion to compel was due on March 4, 2015, 

but was never filed. See E.D. Cal. L. R. 251(a). Thus, the motion has not been briefed, and the 

 1

 http://www.hklaw.com/offices/uniGC.aspx?xpST=OfficeList (last checked March 5, 

2015). 

2

 Defendant has not filed a motion before the assigned district judge to modify the 

scheduling order. 

Case 2:09-cv-03617-KJM-EFB Document 116 Filed 03/05/15 Page 2 of 3
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 

3

court is unable to address the merits of the motion at the March 11 hearing. Accordingly, the 

hearing on relator and KCT’s motion to compel is continued to March 18, 2015, and the parties 

are directed to file their joint statement on or before March 11, 2015.3 

DATED: March 5, 2015. 

 3

 In its motion to continue the hearing, defendant requests the court’s assistance in 

creating a schedule for the preparation of the parties’ joint statement. ECF No. 114 at 1. It is not 

the court’s duty to assist counsel in the preparation of their pleadings. Any issue in completing 

the joint statement should be resolved through the required meet and confer process. See E.D. 

Cal. L.R. 251. 

Case 2:09-cv-03617-KJM-EFB Document 116 Filed 03/05/15 Page 3 of 3