Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_14-cv-00143/USCOURTS-ared-3_14-cv-00143-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

JONESBORO DIVISION 

TRI STATE ADVANCED SURGERY 

CENTER, LLC, GLENN A. CROSBY II, M.D., 

F.A.C.S., and MICHAEL HOOD, M.D. PLAINTIFFS 

v. No. 3:14cv143-JM 

HEALTH CHOICE, LLC and 

CIGNA HEALTHCARE OF TENNESSEE, INC. DEFENDANTS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE 

COMPANY, CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE 

INSURANCE COMPANY, AND CIGNA 

HEALTHCAR E OF TENNESSEE, INC. COUNTERCLAIM-PLAINTIFFS 

v. 

SURGICAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT, INC D/B/A 

SURGCENTER DEVELOPMENT and TRI STATE 

ADVANCED SURGERY CENTER, LLC COUNTERCLAIM-DEFENDANTS 

 

ORDER 

 A hearing was held on March 29, 2016 on the motion for miscellaneous discovery relief 

filed by Surgery Center Development, Inc. (“SurgCenter”), Tri State Advanced Surgery, LLC 

(Tri State) and Doctors Crosby and Hood (Docket No. 138). The motion was opposed by Cigna 

Healthcare of Tennessee, Inc., Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company, and Connecticut 

General Life Insurance Company (collectively “Cigna”). As stated on the record, that motion is 

denied. 

 Counsel for SurgCenter, Tri State, and Doctors Crosby and Hood are seeking access to 

discovery materials produced pursuant to a protective order in Arapahoe Surgery Center, LLC, at 

al. v. Cigna Healthcare, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:13cv3442 (D. Colo) (“Arapahoe”). While 

counsel for the parties to the Arapahoe protective order could themselves have consented to the 

Case 3:14-cv-00143-JM Document 148 Filed 03/31/16 Page 1 of 2
2 

relief requested by the movant’s at this time, and have done so in another action involving these 

parties in Maryland, the Court is unwilling to order this result over Cigna’s objection. 

Furthermore, the request is untimely and would place additional burdens on Cigna’s preparations 

in this matter to expand the scope of documents in this case to include those confidential 

documents produced in Arapahoe. 

For these reasons, the motion for miscellaneous discovery relief (Docket No. 138) is 

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of March, 2016. 

 ______________________________ 

 James M. Moody Jr. 

 United States District Judge 

 

Case 3:14-cv-00143-JM Document 148 Filed 03/31/16 Page 2 of 2