Cave Consulting Group, Inc. v. OptumInsight, Inc.,

Plaintiff: Cave Consulting Group, Inc.
Defendant: OptumInsight, Inc.,
Case Number: 3:2015cv03424
Filed: July 24, 2015
Court: California Northern District Court
Office: San Francisco Office
County: San Mateo
Presiding Judge: Joseph C. Spero
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:15
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
November 6, 2017 215 Opinion or Order of the Court Order by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero regarding 209 Discovery Letter Brief. (jcslc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/6/2017)
March 7, 2017 172 Opinion or Order of the Court Order by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero denying 167 Motion to Stay. (jcslc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/7/2017)
December 29, 2016 161 Opinion or Order of the Court AMENDED ORDER granting in part and denying in part 138 Motion to Compel. This amends and supersedes 151 the Court's October 25, 2016 Order to reflect the Court's determination that it is suitable for interlocutory appeal. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero on December 29, 2016. (jcslc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/29/2016)
October 25, 2016 151 Opinion or Order of the Court Order by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero granting in part and denying in part 138 Motion to Compel. (jcslc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/25/2016)
October 5, 2016 137 Opinion or Order of the Court Order by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero denying 132 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. Plaintiff shall file the documents at issue in the pubic record no later than October 12, 2016. Plaintiff is also instructed to file an unredacted version of its motion to compel as required by the Court's previous 128 Order. (jcslc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/5/2016)
September 23, 2016 128 Opinion or Order of the Court Order by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero denying 124 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. Plaintiff shall file the materials at issue in the public record no earlier than September 27, 2016 and no later than October 3, 2016. (jcslc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/23/2016)
September 12, 2016 127 Opinion or Order of the Court Order by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero denying 103 Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint. (jcslc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/12/2016)
June 10, 2016 95 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER GRANTING AS MODIFIED re 94 Supplemental Brief/Revised Schedule for Resolution of Privilege and Work Product Issues filed by Cave Consulting Group, Inc. Motion Hearing set for 7/8/2016 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, San Franc isco before Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. Motion Hearing set for 9/2/2016 09:30 AM in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C Spero on 6/10/16. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2016)
April 22, 2016 84 Opinion or Order of the Court Order by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero granting 56 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff may file a second amended complaint no later than May 13, 2016. (jcslc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/22/2016)
October 14, 2015 41 Opinion or Order of the Court Order by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero denying as moot 34 Motion to Dismiss and vacating November 6, 2015 hearing. (jcslc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2015)
September 24, 2015 38 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER GRANTING re 37 Stipulation For Extension of Time For Plaintiff to File a Response to Dft's Motion to Dismiss & For Defendant to File a Reply filed by Cave Consulting Group, Inc. Set/Reset Deadlines as to 37 Stipulation re: 34 MOTION to Dismiss . Oppositions/Responses due by 10/9/2015. Replies due by 10/23/2015.. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero on 9/24/15. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/24/2015)
August 14, 2015 23 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER GRANTING re 22 Stipulation Extending Time for Optuminsight to Answer or Otherwise Respond to the Complaint filed by OptumInsight, Inc., Signed by Chief Judge Joseph C. Spero on 8/14/15. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/14/2015)
August 5, 2015 15 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER FINDING CASES NOT RELATED. The court has reviewed the motion (428 in 5:11-cv-00469-EJD) and determined that no cases are related and no reassignments shall occur. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 8/5/2015. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/5/2015)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the California Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Cave Consulting Group, Inc. v. OptumInsight, Inc.,
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Cave Consulting Group, Inc.
Represented By: Richard Louis Brophy
Represented By: David W. Harlan
Represented By: Holly A. House
Represented By: Zachary C. Howenstine
Represented By: Charles W. Steese
Represented By: Sophie J. Sung
Represented By: Mark Aaron Thomas
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: OptumInsight, Inc.,
Represented By: David Allan Couillard
Represented By: Forrest K Tahdooahnippah
Represented By: J. Thomas Vitt
Represented By: Patricia Anne Welch
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?