SYMBRIA, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. John R. CALLEN, et al., Defendants No. 20 C 4084 United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division Signed October 12, 2023 Counsel Jacob Deniro Rhode, Benjamin Guthrie Stewart, Carson Emens Miller, Collin L. Ryan, Michael L. Scheier, Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL, Cincinnati, OH, Matthew John O'Hara, Terrence Joseph Sheahan, Gia Fonte Colunga, James R. Figliulo, Lillian Marie Grappe Lamphere, Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP, Chicago, IL, Jason Paul Stearns, Smith Gambrell & Russell LLP, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiffs. Garry L. Wills, Marc H. Kallish, Roetzel & Andress LPA, Chicago, IL, Joseph Ramos, Dykema Gossett PLLC, Chicago, IL, for Defendants John R. Callen, MedRehab Alliance, LLC, MedRehab Alliance Interstate, LLC, Illinois Ancillary Services Network, LLC, Pearl Health Care Services, Inc., MedRehab Therapy Associates of Illinois, LLC, Joint & Neuro Rehab Associates, LLC. Kevin Michael O'Hagan, Lisa C. Burns, Paige Manley Canepari, Sean Gifford Rohan, O'Hagan Meyer, LLC, Chicago, IL, for Defendant United Methodist Homes & Services. Brian J. Williams, Cozen O'Connor, Chicago, IL, for Defendant Christos V. Dilmas. Michael John Scotti, III, Garry L. Wills, Marc H. Kallish, Roetzel & Andress LPA, Chicago, IL, Joseph Ramos, Dykema Gossett PLLC, Chicago, IL, for Defendants MedRehab Alliance Holdings, Inc., Joint & Neuro Rehab Associates of Chicago LLC. Marc H. Kallish, Roetzel & Andress, LPA, Chicago, IL, for Defendant Kathleen Rice. James R. Figliulo, Lillian Marie Grappe Lamphere, Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP, Chicago, IL, for Intervenors Matthew O'Hara, Smith Gambrell & Russell, Freeborn & Peters LLP. Weisman, M. David, United States Magistrate Judge ORDER *1 Magistrate Judge status hearing held on October 12, 2023 to address remaining discovery issues. Discussion UMHS and plaintiffs seek stay of three designated depositions relating to UMHS due to private mediation scheduled on 11/13/23. Defendant Callen objects to a partial stay, asserting that a stay should be permitted as to all parties because it is inequitable for his client to be required to prepare for important and time-consuming Rule 30(b)(6) depositions while plaintiff need not do so, and any stay will require an extension of fact discovery. The Court denies the request to partially stay discovery. This Court has held numerous settlement conferences, there have been other attempts at mediation, and discovery has previously been stayed to accommodate settlement efforts. All these efforts were to no avail. In the exercise of its discretion, the Court finds any further stays are not appropriate at this juncture. The parties disagree as to the location of the Rule 30(b)(6) Symbria deposition. This deposition will be taken at defense counsel's office in the interest of reduced legal costs. Plaintiffs’ countervailing arguments are not sufficient considering the number of lawyers involved, and the witnesses’ ability to review documents electronically, if necessary. Regarding the timing of Rule 30(b)(6) Symbria deposition and the Great Banc/Trustee Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, discussion held regarding the conflict presented by UMHS counsel for 10/20/23 as well as counsel for John Callen and his entities. Given these conflicts, the Court extends the dates to complete these depositions to 11/3/23, 2023. This is NOT a general extension of the fact discovery cut-off date of 10/27/23. Further, the parties disagreed as to the length of these depositions. These depositions are limited to seven hours each. There was no formal motion to seek depositions beyond 7 hours, and to the extent that there was an informal agreement to allow depositions to exceed 7 hours, defendants request to conduct depositions beyond the formal close of fact discovery obviated any such agreement from the Court's perspective. Motion to compel responses to discovery related to RUA and ROA issue was discussed. Response date extended to 11/9/23 on Defendant Callen's motion to compel (ECF # 829) with reply to be filed 11/17/23 and ruling date on 12/5/23. The Court does not discern any prejudice that cannot be cured by allowing the motion to compel to remain pending while the Rule 30(b)(6) depositions go forward, as the depositions may inform responses to discovery or briefing on the motion to compel. As to Issue # 3 on the Joint Status Report, Dilmas and Callen have objected to producing additional email attachments on relevance grounds. At this point, Dilmas's responses are sufficient from plaintiffs’ perspectives. Callen abandons his claim of privilege but persists in objecting, stating that attachments to approximately twelve emails are not relevant or responsive. The Court will review the attachments to assess their relevancy. Callen to provide emails and attachments to emails between Dilmas and Callen for in camera review by 10/20/23, to be accompanied by a four-page memorandum supporting the relevance objection. *2 Regarding Issue # 4, advice of counsel, UMHS anticipates filing a motion for a protective order on the first four issues in the Rule 30(b)(6) notice, which UMHS states have already been fully explored in Mr. Lowe's deposition. Motion for protective order to be filed by 9 a.m. on 10/18/23 with response to be filed 10/23/23. Court will rule before the 10/27/23 Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. As to Issue # 6, discussion held regarding sufficiency of interrogatory responses to Chicago Rehab on damages. Parties held a meet and confer on 10/11/23. Regarding trade-secret damages issue, Chicago Rehab's motion (of no more than 10 pages) to compel to be filed 10/24/23, response due 11/10/23. By 10/17/23, other defendants to file a brief statement identifying in the record their specific requests, if any, for supplementation of damages interrogatories similar to the requests filed and pursued by Chicago Rehab. (ECF # 504) (Court ruling on Chicago Rehab's motion to compel as to this same interrogatory, noting that plaintiffs would need to supplement later). Hearing on 10/17/23 filing set for 10/19/22 at 1:45 p.m. Discussion held regarding deposition scheduling issues. Parties in agreement that Ms. West and Mr. Arellano's depositions may occur after the close of fact discovery due to health issues. Defendants have to date been unable to serve third-party Ms. Yavarski; she recently left plaintiff's employment and is uncooperative. Court directs defendants to make every effort to serve Ms. Yavarski as soon as possible; if need be, defendants must file motion for leave to depose her after end of fact discovery. Any such motion must be filed prior to the close of fact discovery. Court notes that depositions of Ms. Simonetti and Ms. Reese have not been scheduled. Court directs them to be completed by 10/27/23 if any party wishes to pursue either deposition. Depositions of Dawn Mondschein, Anne Oliva, and Carol Sussenbach also must be completed by 10/27/23. Discussion held regarding de-designation of attorneys’-eyes-only documents provided to plaintiffs by defendant Callen and his entities. The Court has already ordered that plaintiffs’ Rule 30(b)(6) witness must attempt to familiarize herself with documents produced during discovery. (ECF # 839.) From defendant Callen's perspective, plaintiffs’ request to de-designate all attorneys’-eyes-only documents would force Callen to either lose that protection of the discovery process or abandon his request that the witness consider documents produced in discovery in responding to questions. Plaintiffs express concern over the work-product implications of counsel identifying certain documents over others for de-designation. For the reasons stated on the record, plaintiffs are directed to seek document-by-document de-designation for witness preparation. Plaintiffs are encouraged to make a record at the deposition if the de-designation request has been denied so that plaintiffs are not faulted for not being fully prepared when they did not have access to all necessary documents. SO ORDERED.