Opinion ID: 1190367
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: B & H's Discovery Claim

Text: When reviewing a district court's decision to limit discovery, we will intervene only if the decision was an abuse of discretion resulting in substantial prejudice. Hahn v. Star Bank, 190 F.3d 708, 719 (6th Cir.1999).
As with its antitrust claims, B & H's appeal of the district court's discovery order, which limited B & H's efforts to obtain broad categories of information from nonparty BCBSM, suffers from fatal flaws. W & F correctly observes that, although B&H devoted a large portion of its appellate brief to complaints about the discovery process, nowhere did B&H include a discussion of the standard of review for such claims. As it apparently did before the district court, on appeal B & H simply asserts that the additional discovery was necessary, without offering any reasonable explanation for why information possessed by BCBSM would have assisted B & H's efforts to define properly a relevant market and estimate the percentage of DME/P & O business foreclosed by the agreement that established the SUPPORT network as the exclusive source for DME/P & O services for certain employees and retirees of Chrysler, Ford, and the MPSERS. Indeed, much of B & H's argument relating to the discovery issue appears in its Statement of the Case portion of its brief, where B&H declares that it was denied legitimate discovery in the proceedings below. Appellant Br. at 7 (emphasis added). We affirm the district court's discovery order because B&H has failed to demonstrate either that the district court abused its discretion in limiting B & H's efforts to obtain information from nonparty BCBSM or that its meritless antitrust claims were substantially prejudiced by the limited discovery.