Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.


March 25, 2003


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Paul L. Friedman, United States District Judge


On January 7, 2003, the Court consolidated 30 civil actions with the above-captioned case.*fn1 Subsequent to the consolidation, approximately 215 additional actions have been filed that raise the same or similar legal and factual issues. Under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court may consolidate separately filed cases when the cases involve a common question of law or fact. See FED. R. CIV. P. 42(a). Under Local Civil Rule 40.5(d), motions to consolidate shall be determined by the judge to whom the earliest numbered case is assigned. See LCvR 40.5(d).

The Court has determined that the 246 actions listed in Appendix A to this Case Management Order involve the same or similar legal issues. It therefore concludes that consolidation of these cases is appropriate. Furthermore, upon consideration of the proposed case management plan submitted by counsel for all parties in the 31 previously-consolidated cases and of the complaints filed in the 215 related cases, and recognizing the logistical burdens plaintiffs' counsel have placed on the Court by filing separate actions instead of one class action lawsuit, the Court has determined that a global case management plan is necessary in order to effectuate the efficient disposition of these actions.

The Court also has concluded that the burden to procedurally coordinate all of these matters (and any related cases subsequently filed) for all plaintiffs and to communicate and coordinate with defendant's counsel should be borne by the four law firms that have filed the vast majority of these cases.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that Baystate Health System v. Tommy Thompson, Civil Action No. 02-0601 and those actions listed in Appendix A to this Order are hereby CONSOLIDATED; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that in order to facilitate the efficient management of these 246 cases, plaintiffs' counsel: (1) shall continue to serve the persons statutorily required to be served with pleadings on behalf of defendant Thompson with all pleadings in these consolidated actions and in any related cases subsequently filed; and (2) in addition, shall provide copies of all past, present and future pleadings, motions, oppositions, replies and other filings in these consolidated actions and in any related cases subsequently filed, with the exception of the past filings in the 31 cases previously consolidated on January 7, 2003, to Robert E. Leidenheimer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, 555 Fourth St. NW, Washington, D.C., 20530 (hereinafter "government counsel"); it is

FURTHER ORDERED that those counsel not currently registered in the Court's Electronic Case Filing ("ECF") system shall contact the Clerk's Office in order to register;*fn2 it is

FURTHER ORDERED that all papers raising matters and issues common to more than one of these consolidated cases henceforth shall be filed only in the newly-created Miscellaneous Action No. 03-0090 (PLF) under the caption "In Re: Medicare Reimbursement Litigation," and not in their individually-numbered cases; the individual cases to which the filings pertain nevertheless shall be listed in the caption of that filing as demonstrated in the following examples:


This document relates to:



Misc. No. 03-0090 (PLF),


This document relates to: ALL ACTIONS

Misc. No. 03-0090 (PLF)

it is

FURTHER ORDERED that filings related to issues or matters unique to one case shall be filed only under that original individually-numbered case and not in Miscellaneous Action No. 03-0090; joint motions to dismiss on the basis of settlement, praecipes of dismissals and/or settlement documents submitted for court approval and similar filings shall be filed under the original individually-numbered case; when counsel files papers in the individual civil actions those counsel shall not "spread" that filing to the other consolidated actions when presented with that option during the ECF filing process; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is not required to provide hard copies of any papers filed electronically in the consolidated cases to supernumerary attorneys of a law firm who have not entered their appearances on the ECF system and registered for a password granting them access to the electronic dockets; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the following lawyers and law firms are hereby designated "Coordinating Counsel": Reed Smith LLP, with lead counsel Jacqueline E. Bennett; Crowell & Moring, with lead counsel Robert Roth; Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, with lead counsel John R. Jacob; and Kenneth R. Marcus, P.C., with lead counsel Kenneth R Marcus. As Coordinating Counsel, their responsibilities are to coordinate with all other plaintiffs' counsel to reach agreements on briefing schedules, number and lengths of briefs, and other matters that concern the core issues involved in all or most of the now consolidated cases, to communicate and coordinate with government counsel, and to attempt to negotiate any disagreements with the government before filing any motions or otherwise bringing such matters to the attention of the Court consistent with Local Civil Rule 7.1(m); it is

FURTHER ORDERED that Coordinating Counsel and government counsel shall jointly submit a proposed case management plan for all of the consolidated cases, including those in which the government's time to answer may not have expired, on or before May 16, 2003. This case management plan shall include a proposed schedule for briefing of the core issues. The Court expects joint briefs from plaintiffs, and will only consider the submission of short supplemental briefs filed by individual plaintiffs for good cause shown. In planning its schedule, counsel can assume that oral argument on the core issues will take place sometime between July 15, 2003 and August 20, 2003; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent that the government intends to move for an enlargement of time within which to answer or otherwise respond to the complaints in these consolidated actions, the government is directed to file a comprehensive request in the form of a plenary motion to the extent possible; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that parties in any new cases filed and/or consolidated with these actions after this Order is entered will be required to comply with any briefing or case management schedules already in place except for good cause shown why those new actions should be exempt, keeping in mind that any decision made by the Court on the core issues after the July or August argument is unlikely to be reconsidered.



02-0601: Baystate Health Systems v. Thompson

02-0683: Covenant Medical Center v. Thompson

02-1373: Saint Luke's Hospital of Kansas City v. Thompson

02-1380: Regents of the University of Michigan v. Thompson

02-1635: St. Francis Medical Center v. Thompson

02-1731: Brigham & Women's Hospital, et al. v. Thompson

02-1890: Via Christi Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. Thompson

02-1891: Saint Vincent Health Center v. Thompson

02-1892: Johnson City Medical Center v. Thompson

02-1893: St. John's Health System N.E. Community Hospital v. Thompson

02-1899: Presbyterian Hospital v. Thompson

02-1900: Forsyth Memorial Hospital, et al. v. Thompson

02-1901: Naples Community Hospital v. Thompson

02-1902: Virginia Mason Medical Center v. Thompson

02-1905: Waterbury Hospital v. Thompson

02-1907: Avera McKennan Hospital v. Thompson

02-1908: Rapid City Regional Hospital v. Thompson

02-1910: University of Washington v. Thompson

02-1911: Duke University Health System, Inc. v. Thompson

02-1912: William W. Backus Hospital v. Thompson

02-1913: Stamford Hospital v. Thompson

02-1914: Danbury Hospital v. Thompson

02-1915: New Britain General Hospital v. Thompson

02-1916: Edward W. Sparrow Hospital v. Thompson

02-1918: W.A. Foote Memorial Hospital v. Thompson

02-1919: Baptist Memorial Hospital v. Thompson

02-1920: Valley Presbyterian Hospital v. Thompson

02-1921: Denver General Hospital v. Thompson

02-1924: Monongahela Valley Hospital v. Thompson

02-1926: University of Kansas Hospital Authority v. Thompson

02-1927: Glenwood Regional Medical Center v. Thompson

02-2350: Meriter Hospital, Inc., et al. v. Thompson

03-0162: St. Vincent Hospital of the Hospital Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis v. Thompson

03-0221: Via Christi Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. Thompson

03-0245: Saint Luke's Hospital of Kansas City v. Thompson

03-0250: Lakeland Regional Medical Center v. Thompson

03-0264: William B. Kessler Memorial Hospital v. Thompson

03-0267: Sisters of St. Francis Health Services, Inc. v. Thompson

03-0280: Winter Haven Hospital v. Thompson

03-0297: Salem Memorial Corporation v. Thompson

03-0299: Baptist St. Anthony Health System v. Thompson

03-0312: Medical Center East, Inc. v. Thompson

03-0315: Swedish Covenant Hospital v. Thompson

03-0316: St. Joseph Regional Health Center v. Thompson

03-0317: Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital v. Thompson

03-0318: St. Claire Medical Center v. Thompson

03-0319: Columbus Regional Hospital v. Thompson

03-0320: Somerset Hospital v. Thompson

03-0321: Delta Medical Center v. Thompson

03-0322: Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital v. Thompson

03-0323: Harrisburg Hospital, et al. v. Thompson

03-0332: Clara Maass Medical Center, et al. v. Thompson

03-0333: Cabrini Medical Center v. Thompson

03-0334: United Health Service Hospitals, ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.