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:
…nothing in the statutory language requires Branch to be the original source for each manifestation of the allegedly fraudulent scheme. Continue reading “Strike up the band – Judge Vance’s Order calls the dance and “rocks” on Rockwell (a Branch qui tam update)”