UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. PROCARENT, INC.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA NEW ALBANY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. David ) Abrams, ) STATE OF INDIANA ex rel. David Abrams, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) No. 4:15-cv-00104-TWP-DML ) PROCARENT, INC., ) YELLOW ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS, LLC ) a/k/a YELLOW ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS ) a/k/a YELLOW AMBULANCE OF ) SOUTHERN INDIANA ) a/k/a YELLOW AMBULANCE SERVICE, ) CARE AMBULANCE SERVICE, LLC ) a/k/a CARE AMBULANCE, ) GATEWAY AMBULANCE SERVICE, LLC ) a/k/a GATEWAY AMBULANCE, ) MICHAEL J. MACKIN, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) DAVID ABRAMS, ) ) Relator. )

ORDER ON RELATOR'S RULE 56(d) MOTION

This matter is before the Court on Relator David Abram's ("Abrams") Motion filed pursuant to Federal Rule of 56(d). (Filing No. 236.) Abrams filed this Motion in response to Defendants Procarent, Inc.'s, Yellow Enterprise Systems, LLC's, Care Ambulance Service, LLC's, Gateway Ambulance Service, LLC's, and Michael Mackin's (collectively, "Defendants") Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing No. 233). Abrams alleges that he is unable to properly respond to the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment given that there are several undecided procedural motions related to disputed discovery. These disputed motions include a Motion for Sanctions (Filing No. 202), a Motion to Compel Privilege Log Documents (Filing No. 207), and a Motion to Extend Case Management Deadlines by Six Months (Filing No. 212). According to Rule 56(d), "If a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specific reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may: (1) defer considering the motion or deny it; (2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery; or (3) issue any other appropriate order." Rule 56 permits the Court to "delay consideration of a summary judgment motion and order additional discovery before ruling if the nonmovant demonstrations ‘it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition.” Sterk v. Redbox Automated Retail, LLC, 770 F.3d 618, 627-28 (7th Cir. 2014) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d)). The Court will issue rulings on the outstanding procedural motions in due course. Having reviewed those motions, the Court agrees with Abrams and grants his Rule 56(d) motion. (Filing No. 236.) The Court will delay ruling on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and issue a briefing schedule for a response deadline once the pending procedural motions have been resolved. SO ORDERED. Date: _ 8/15/2022 ( Nan, x \ Jato» \yrectt Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Chief Judge United States District Court Southern District of Indiana

Distribution: Eric Parker Babbs INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL - MEDICAID FRAUD CONTROL UNIT babbs@atg.in.gov Phillip D. Barber RICHARD A. HAPOOTLIAN, PA pdb@harpootlianlaw.com

William H. Brammell, Jr. RICHARD A. HARPOOTLIAN, PA DRESSMAN BENEZINGER LAVELLE cpk@harpootlianlaw.com psc bbrammell@dbllaw.com D. Sean Nilsen FURMAN & NILSEN PLLC David Michael Dirr snilsen@lawsean.com Dressman Benzinger & LaVelle psc ddirr@dbllaw.com Nick Oberheiden Nick Oberheiden C. Dean Furman, Jr. nick@federal-lawyer.com FURMAN & NILSEN PLLC dean@lawdean.com Elizabeth K, Stepp Oberheiden PC Joseph P. Griffith, Jr. eks@federal-lawyer.com JOE GRIFFITH LAW FIRM, LLC joegriffithjr@hotmail.com Jeffrey Kent Wicker DRESSMAN BENZINGER LAVELL PSC Richard A. Harpootlian kwicker@dbllaw.com RICHARD A. HARPOOTLIAN, PA rah@harpootlianlaw.com Shelese M. Woods UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S Dennis P. Kennedy OFFICE (Indianapolis) DRESSMAN BENZINGER LAVELLE shelese.woods@usdoj.gov PSC dkennedy@dbllaw.com Robert Lewis Yates INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL Christopher P. Kenney Robert.yates@atg.in.gov