United States of America et al v. Bluewave Healthcare Consultants Inc et al, No. 9:2014cv00230 - Document 434 (D.S.C. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER AND OPINION denying without prejudice 427 Motion for an Order under Rule 16. The Government has named 213 potential witnesses. In fairness to the parties, the Government is hereby ordered to provide a detailed and uni que summary of each potential witness's expected testimony by May 9, 2017. The Government must notify defendants by May 9, 2017 of any witnesses it does not expect to call at trial, and the Government need not complete a summary for those witnesses. 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. 434 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., Plaintiffs-Relators, v. Berkeley Heartlab, Inc., et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 9: 14-cv-00230-RMG (Consolidated with 9: l1-cv-1593-RMG and 9: 15-cv-2458-RMG) ORDER and OPINION ----------------------------) BlueWave Healthcare Consultants, Inc., Floyd Calhoun Dent, III, and Robert Bradford 10hnson have moved for an order under Rule 16 requiring the parties to eliminate from their witness disclosures any potential witness they do not intend to call at triaL (Dkt. No. 427.) The Government has named 213 potential witnesses. In fairness to the parties, the Government is hereby ordered to provide a detailed and unique summary of each potential witness's expected testimony by May 9, 2017. The Government must notify defendants by May 9, 2017 of any witnesses it does not expect to call at trial, and the Government need not complete a summary for those witnesses. Defendants' motion (Dkt. No. 427) is denied without prejudice. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. United States District Court Judge April , 2017 Charleston, South Carolina -lDockets.Justia.com
]]>
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.
