United States District Court, D. New Jersey
JAY MINERLEY, Individually and as Class Representative, Plaintiff,
AETNA, INC., AETNA HEALTH INC., AETNA HEALTH INSURANCE CO., AETNA LIFE INSURANCE CO., and THE RAWLINGS COMPANY, LLC, Defendants.
CHARLES THOMAS KANNEBECKER THE LAW OFFICE OF CHARLES
KANNEBECKER On behalf of Plaintiff.
N. BOLAND JOSEPH M. ARMSTRONG DON P. FOSTER MATTHEW D.
ANNUNZIO OFFIT KURMAN, P.A. TEN PENN CENTER On behalf of
ANTHONY MICHAEL CHRISTINA LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. On behalf of
D. ST. PHILLIP, JR. URIEL RABINOVITZ RICHARD W. COHEN GERALD
LAWRENCE LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. On behalf of Defendants.
L. HILLMAN, DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter concerns alleged violations of New Jersey insurance
regulation laws. Plaintiff Jay Minerley appeals Magistrate
Judge Karen Williams's December 15, 2017 Discovery Order.
For the reasons that follow, the Magistrate Judge's
December 15, 2017 Discovery Order will be affirmed.
Court held a status hearing in this matter on June 26, 2017,
in which the Court discussed some additional discovery that
might be useful in this case, including discovery on certain
claims history. On July 11, 2017, the Court issued the
following text order:
The Court having considered the parties' letters at
docket entries 154 and 156 concerning the current scope of
permitted discovery following the status hearing held on June
26, 2017, it shall be, and hereby is ORDERED that Aetna shall
provide to Plaintiff the identification of names and
addresses of every Weiss-Aug employee, and any covered family
member, against whose third party tort recovery Aetna and/or
Rawlings asserted, and collected, a subrogation lien.
the parties had a dispute over the scope of discovery. On
November 28, 2017, Plaintiff filed a letter with the Court
addressed to the Magistrate Judge concerning “the
parties' dispute regarding Defendants' objections to
Plaintiff's four interrogatories and four document
requests.” Namely, the dispute concerned
Plaintiff's request for discovery on the history of
Defendants' assertion of subrogation liens in plans
involving other New Jersey employers.
a telephone conference, on December 15, 2017, the Magistrate
Judge entered a Discovery Order stating: “The request
to conduct discovery as to other plan members in analogous
plans who have out of state employees with subrogation claims
is DENIED.” Plaintiff filed an appeal of the Discovery
Order on December 29, 2017.
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) provides:
When a pretrial matter not dispositive of a party's claim
or defense is referred to a magistrate judge to hear and
decide, the magistrate judge must promptly conduct the
required proceedings and, when appropriate, issue a written
order stating the decision. A party may serve and file
objections to the order within 14 days after being served
with a copy. A party may not assign as error a defect in the
order not timely objected to. The district judge in the case