UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERATION OF PHYSICIANS AND DENTISTS, INC., Defendant.
United States District Court, D. Delaware.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
July 29, 1999.
July 29, 1999.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Gregory M. Sleet, Virginia Gibson-Mason, U.S. Attorney's Office, Wilmington, DE, for United States of America, plaintiff.
Perry F. Goldlust, Heiman, Aber & Goldlust, Wilmington, DE, for Federation of Physicians and Dentists, Inc., defendant.
Lewis H. Lazarus, Morris, James, Hitchens & Williams, Wilmington, DE, for First State Orthopaedics, movant.
Daniel V. Folt, Cozen & O'Connor, Philadelphia, PA, for Principal Health Care of Delaware, Inc., movant.
John A. Parkins, Jr., Richards, Layton & Finger, Wilmington, DE, for Amerihealth of Delaware, Inc., Independence Blue Cross, movants.
Carl Schnee, United States Attorney and Virginia Gibson-Mason, Assistant United States Attorney, of U.S. Department of Justice, Wilmington, DE, Of Counsel, Melvin A. Schwarz, Special Enforcement Counsel, Assistant Attorney General and Steven Kramer, Richard S. Martin, Denise E. Biehn, Michael D. Farber, Heather H. Howard, and Jean Lin, Assistant Attorneys General, of U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Washington, D.C., for United States of America.
Perry F. Goldlust, of Heiman, Aber, Goldlust & Baker, Wilmington, DE, Of Counsel, Hal K. Litchford, Donald E. Christopher, and Mary E. Fitzgibbons, of Litchford & Christopher P.A., Orlando, FL, for Defendant Federation of Physicians and Dentists, Inc.
P. Clarkson Collins Jr. and Lewis H. Lazarus, of Morris, James, Hitchens & Williams, Wilmington, DE, for Third Party First State Orthopaedics, P.A.
United States District Court, D. Delaware.
OPINION
FARNAN, Chief Judge.
Presently before the Court is the Plaintiff's Letter Motion to Compel the Defendant, the Federation of Physicians and Dentists, Inc., to comply with the Government's First Request for Documents and to compel non-party orthopedic surgeons, orthopedic surgeon group practices and Dr. Connair to comply with certain requests made in subpoenas duces tecum served on them. (D.I.65). For the reasons stated below, the Court...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
