VASQUEZ v. INDIANA UNIVERSITY HEALTH, INC. et al
| Indiana Southern District Court | |
| Judge: | Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| Referred: | Mario Garcia |
| Case #: | 1:21-cv-01693 |
| Nature of Suit | 410 Other Statutes - Antitrust |
| Cause | 28:1331 Fed. Question: Anti-trust |
| Case Filed: | Jun 11, 2021 |
| Terminated: | Nov 05, 2021 |
| Last checked: Wednesday Dec 08, 2021 3:33 AM EST |
|
Defendant
INDIANA UNIVERSITY HEALTH BLOOMINGTON, INC.
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
INDIANA UNIVERSITY HEALTH, INC.
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
DANIEL HANDEL
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
RICARDO VASQUEZ
|
Represented By
|
GPO
Nov 05 2021
ORDER - For the reasons detailed herein, the Court: GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, 12, as follows: The Motion is GRANTED as to Dr. Vasquez's claims under the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act, and those claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and The Motion is DENIED AS MOOT as to Dr. Vasquez's state law claims for: (1) violations of Ind. Code § 24-1-2-2 and Ind. Code § 24-1-2-7 against IU Health and Bloomington Hospital; (2) breach of contract against Bloomington Hospital; and (3) defamation against all Defendants, and those claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction. The Court also DENIES Defendants' Motion for Oral Argument, 21. Final judgment shall enter accordingly. (See Order). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 11/5/2021. (MAC) |
|
|
GPO
Nov 05 2021
CLOSED JUDGMENT - For the reasons set forth in the Court's Order entered this day, the Court now enters FINAL JUDGMENT as follows: Plaintiff's claims under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2, and the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §18, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and Plaintiff's state law claims for: (1) violations of Ind. Code § 24-1-2-2 and Ind. Code § 24-1-2-7 against IU Health and Bloomington Hospital; (2) breach of contract against Bloomington Hospital; and (3) defamation against all Defendants are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 11/5/2021. (MAC) |
|
|
GPO
May 15 2023
ORDER - Defendants are ORDERED to make any revisions to their relevance redactions to incorporate the above rulings and to provide Plaintiff with a redaction log within 21 days of this Order (or such time as the parties may otherwise agree). The parties are further ORDERED to meet and confer about Defendants' assertion of the peer-review privilege reference above. (See Order.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Mario Garcia on 5/15/23.(NAD) |
|
|
GPO
Jul 10 2023
ORDER - The parties appeared by counsel for a telephonic discovery conference on June 29, 2023 to discuss a variety of discovery matters raised by both Plaintiff and Defendants. The parties submitted written positions on the matters in advance of the conference, and the undersigned heard argument from counsel during the conference. In summary, (1) Plaintiff is ORDERED to produce the financial documents provided to his accountants for preparation his personal and business entities' tax returns; (2) Defendants' request for Plaintiff's EHR daily calendar is DENIED at this juncture and without prejudice to re-raise the issue following Plaintiff's deposition; (3) the parties are ORDERED to continue meet-and-confer efforts to schedule depositions sought by Plaintiff with the guidance provided in this Order; and (4) Plaintiff's request for IT phone call recordings is DENIED. See Order for additional information. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mario Garcia on 7/10/2023.(SWM) |
|
|
GPO
Sep 14 2023
ORDER - Defendants' Request Nos. 66(a), 66(c), 67, and 68 are DENIED, and Defendants' Request Nos. 66(b) and 70 are GRANTED. The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer about the above matters within 7 days of this Order, taking into consideration the guidance provided by the Court. Plaintiff is further ORDERED to serve upon Defendants supplemental responses to Request Nos. 66(b) and 70 within 60 days of the parties' meet and confer. SEE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mario Garcia on 9/14/2023.(JRB) |
|
|
GPO
Nov 07 2023
ORDER - Defendants' Objection to September 14, 2023 Discovery Order, 131, is OVERRULED. The magistrate judge is requested to conduct whatever proceedings are necessary to determine whether the Sonosoft records are indeed a summary; whether and to what extent Dr. Vasquez has used or will use the Sonosoft records to oppose summary judgment or to prove his claims at trial; and whether and to what extent Federal Rule of Evidence 1006 compels production to Defendants of the underlying records. The Court refers determination of the foregoing issues to the magistrate judge in the event the parties cannot reach an agreement on their resolution. (SEE ORDER) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 11/7/2023. (KAA) |
|
|
GPO
Dec 07 2023
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Mario Garcia's Report and Recommendation that the Court GRANT the Plaintiff's 105 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, and there being no objection, the Court finds the Report and Recommendation 185 shall be adopted as the order of the Court. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the Clerk to docket [105-1] as Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief. The Court further adopts the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to re-open summary judgment briefing, and ORDERS the following schedule: (SEE ORDER.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 12/7/2023. Copy to Han Cui via US mail. (JSR) |
| Docket last updated: 06/12/2021 12:20 AM EDT |
| Friday, June 11, 2021 | ||
| 1 | 1
40
pgs
COMPLAINT for Damages and Injunctive Relief against Daniel Handel, INDIANA UNIVERSITY HEALTH BLOOMINGTON, INC., INDIANA UNIVERSITY HEALTH, INC., filed by RICARDO VASQUEZ. (Filing fee $402, receipt number 0756-6607806)(O'Connor, Katharine)
|
|
|
Att: 1
Civil Cover Sheet,
|
||
|
Att: 2
Proposed Summons
|
||