Order

Date: 
Tuesday, February 29, 2000
Document Type: 
Court Orders
This document is available in two formats: this web page (for browsing content) and PDF (comparable to original document formatting). To view the PDF you will need Acrobat Reader, which may be downloaded from the Adobe site. For an official signed copy, please contact the Antitrust Documents Group.


THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE



UNITED STATES,    

                  Plaintiff,

                  v.

FEDERATION OF PHYSICIANS AND   
DENTISTS,

                  Defendant.


|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|         
C.A. No. 96-475-JJF

WHEREAS, on May 19, 1999, the Defendant made a request for the production of all documents and materials the Plaintiff obtained in response to Civil Investigative Demands (CIDs) made in connection with United States v. Federation of Certified Surgeons & Specialists, Inc., No. 99-167-CIV-T-17F (M.D. Fla.) (D.I. 95);

WHEREAS, on June 15, 1999, the Plaintiff served its objections to producing these documents and materials to the Defendant (D.I. 114);

WHEREAS, a Letter Motion to Compel Discovery of all such documents and materials, filed by the Defendant on August 25, 1999, is currently before the Court (D.I. 124);

WHEREAS, the Defendant in this motion argues that they intend to use these CIDs for the sole purpose of comparing the facts of the instant case with that of United States v. Federation of Certified Surgeons & Specialists, Inc., in order to shape the scope of injunctive relief should the Court find liability against them;

WHEREAS, a party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to ths subject matter involved in the pending action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(l);

WHEREAS, the information a party seeks to discover need not be admissible at trial if the information appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id.;

WHEREAS, the settlement terms that a plaintiff may agree to in another case, in its exercise of prosecutorial discretion, has no bearing whatsoever on the nature or scope of relief that may te appropriate after a liability finding against a defendant in a different case. See United Spates v. Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d 1448, 1459-61 (D.C. Cir. 1995);

WHEREAS, while recognizing the broad scope of the discovery rules and the right of a party to inquire into any relevant non-privileged matter, the information sought by the Defendant has no bearing whatsoever on the scope of injunctive relief in this case, and thus, cannot be said to be reasonably calculated to lead to ths discovery of admissible evidence;

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this 29th day of February, 2000, that the Defendant's Letter Motion to Compel Discovery (D.I. 124) of all documents and materials the Plainti obtained in response to CIDs made in connection with the case United States v. Federation of Certified Surgeons & Specialists, Inc. is DENIED.

  _______________/s/________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Attachments: 
Updated June 30, 2015