United States of America et al v. Bluewave Healthcare Consultants Inc et al, No. 9:2014cv00230 - Document 433 (D.S.C. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER AND OPINION granting 422 Motion to Compel. The Court hereby imposes a limit of one-hundred (100) interrogatories which is more appropriate under the circumstances. BlueWave, Dent, and Johnson are therefore ordered to respond to the Government's second set of interrogatories. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 4/28/2017.(sshe, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
United States of America et al v. Bluewave Healthcare Consultants Inc et al Doc. 433 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION United States of America, et al., Plaintiffs, ex rei. Scarlett Lutz, et al., P laintiffs-Relators, v. Berkeley Heartlab, Inc., et ai., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 9: 14-cv-00230-RMG (Consolidated with 9: ll-cv-1593-RMG and 9: 15-cv-2458-RMG) ORDER and OPINION This matter is before the Court on the Government's motion to compel defendants BlueWave Healthcare Consultants, Inc. (HBlueWave"), Floyd Calhoun Dent, III, and Robert Bradford Johnson to answer the United States' Second Set oflnterrogatories. (Dkt. No. 422.) The United States and the defendants previously agreed that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 applies to interrogatories to parties. (Dkt. No. 123.) Rule 33 provides that a party may serve on any other party no more than twenty-five (25) written interrogatories. BlueWave, Dent, and Johnson have refused to answer the Government's second set of interrogatories, arguing that the Government has exceeded the twenty-five (25) interrogatories allowed by Rule 33. Complex litigation matters such as this one often call for more than the twenty-five (25) interrogatories permitted under Rule 33. For this reason, the Court hereby imposes a limit of onehundred (100) interrogatories which is more appropriate under the circumstances. BlueWave, Dent, and Johnson are therefore ordered to respond to the Government's second set of interrogatories. -1Dockets.Justia.com AND IT IS SO ORDERED. United States District Court Judge ?21 April ,2017 Charleston, South Carolina
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
