“The Court has issued a number of decisions in this matter, and knowledge of the relevant background will be presumed.”
Either Judge Vance has a dry wit or I’ve gone as slap-happy as the Three Stooges trying to clear my “drafts file” of posts. Whatever. Strike up the band provided SLABBED readers with “knowledge of the relevant background” presumed – and, that said, we take a look at the series of Orders recently added to the Branch qui tam docket:
The Court has issued a number of decisions in this matter, and knowledge of the relevant background will be presumed…
The question now before the Court is simply whether Branch may obtain discovery as to properties for which an ANPAC subsidiary, rather than ANPAC itself, wrote the insurance policy. Contrary to ANPAC’s assertions, this question is not jurisdictional.
ANPAC also objects to the Magistrate Judge’s order granting a protective order to Branch as to certain tax and payment records.
It’s been almost six months since SLABBED published Shall we dance? (March 2010), a post reporting Magistrate Shushan’s Order that granted in-part only the Branch Consultant’s Motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) – so long that most have likely forgotten the big news of Shushan’s Order was what she denied and her subsequent Report, posted by Sop stock-basher style, recommending the Court limit Branch’s Discovery to the exemplar claims cited in the original Complaint.
Suffice it to say, a flurry of motions followed both the Order and Report and then everyone waited and waited – and waited even longer – for Judge Vance to issue a related Order and Reasons (posted on Scribd below):
Before the Court are two challenges to the decisions of the Magistrate Judge. First, relator Branch Consultants appeals the Magistrate Judge’s decision granting in part and denying in part its Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. Branch also opposes the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation regarding the scope of discovery. For the following reasons, the Magistrate Judge’s denial of Branch’s motion for leave to amend is REVERSED. The Court, after a de novo review, declines to accept the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as detailed in this Order.
Because Judge Vance’s decision declining to accept the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendations addresses issues relevant to the Rigsby qui tam case, SLABBED reminds readers that Judge Vance “rocks” on Rockwell as we first review the related portion of her Order and the reasoning that led her to determine:
Nowadays, all roads seem to lead to Jefferson Parish. Why I was surprised to find a road connecting Jefferson Parish to the Branch qui tam case is beyond me. Mind you, it’s not a main road; but, before we can go there, a little background is in order and, for that, we make a u-turn and a quick stop atShall we dance– the SLABBED post on Magistrate Shushan’s Order granting in part the Branch motion to file a second amended complaint.
In her Order, Magistrate Shushan declared, “The loss-shifting and inflated-revenue motives create two entirely different schemes”. I contend otherwise…Not only is “inflated revenue” an essential element of loss-shifting, the Magistrate had no data to support her decision…
Data are an essential element of the decision-making process; however, data derive meaning in the context of other data. For example, if claims data from all insurers covering property in Jefferson Parish were analyzed in the context of other data, it could be possible to determine the extent of damage resulting from the disabled pumping system and, in turn, indicate the associated cost of contracts for the required repair and rebuilding and concomitant loss from corruption of the contracting process – The rising tide that’s sinking all ships…