Murphy v. Health Care Service Corporation
| Kelsey Murphy |
| Health Care Service Corporation d/b/a Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois doing business as Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois and Health Care Service Corporation doing business as Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois |
| 1:2022cv02656 |
| May 19, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Gabriel A Fuentes |
| LaShonda A Hunt |
| Steven C Seeger |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Sex Discrimination |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 20, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 47
MINUTE entry before the Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt: Telephonic status hearing on 10/24/23 reset to 9:30AM instead of 10:00AM. Time change only. Emailed notice. (cdh, )
|
|
Filing 46
MINUTE entry before the Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt: A telephonic status hearing is set for 10/24/23 at 10:00 AM. Attorneys/parties should appear for the hearing by calling the Toll-Free Number: 877-336-1828, Access Code: 4082461. Members of the public and media may call in to listen to the hearing. Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting court proceedings. Emailed notice. (cdh, )
|
|
Filing 45
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Signed by the Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt on 10/17/23. Plaintiff Kelsey Murphy ("Plaintiff") brings this class action complaint against her health insurance provider, Defendant Health Care Service Corporation d/b/a Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois ("Blue Cross"), challenging its policy governing access to fertility treatments. Plaintiff alleges the Blue Cross policy intentionally discriminates against her and other LGBTQ participants based on sexual orientation, by imposing additional out-of-pocket costs on them that heterosexual participants do not have to incur in order to qualify for fertility benefits. Blue Cross has moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons that follow, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss #15 is denied. Emailed notice. (cdh, )
|
|
Filing 44
AGREED Confidentiality Order Signed by the Honorable Gabriel A. Fuentes on 10/3/2023. Mailed notice. (lxk, )
|
|
Filing 43
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Gabriel A. Fuentes: Enter Agreed Confidentiality Order. Mailed notice. (lxk, )
|
|
Filing 42
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Gabriel A. Fuentes: On review of the joint status report (doc. #41 ), the Court grants the parties' joint request for an additional 30 days to propose an expert discovery schedule and to provide a settlement status update while plaintiff also considers "what additional discovery is necessary, and a realistic timeline for completing it." In the meantime, though, the Court previously moved the fact discovery cutoff to 3/29/24 (doc. #36 ) to give the parties room to discuss a possible settlement per their earlier status report (doc. #35 ). For now, at least, the 3/29/24 fact cutoff date is real, although in the next joint report due by noon on 11/2/23, the Court kindly requests more specific information from the parties on a realistic discovery plan and timeline if settlement is not imminent. As the referral here includes settlement, the parties also are reminded that if at any time they wish to engage in a settlement conference, they may contact the courtroom deputy, Lauren Knight, at 312-818-6514 to initiate the scheduling process. Mailed notice. (lxk, )
|
|
Filing 41
STATUS Report Jointly Submitted by Kelsey Murphy Presented before Magistrate Judge (Wallace, Edward)
|
|
Filing 40
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Gabriel A. Fuentes: The parties' joint motion for entry of an agreed confidentiality order (doc. #39 ) is granted, and the Agreed Confidentiality Order will be entered in the form as agreed and submitted to the Court as Exhibit A to the motion, upon the parties' transmittal of a Word version of the order to the Court's Proposed order email box. Further: (1) The Court further directs the parties' attention to the Court's Standing Order for Civil Cases Before Magistrate Judge Fuentes, available on the Court's website, and in particular the section on protective orders. In addition to the language in Paragraph 10 of the Agreed Confidentiality Order to be entered, the parties are advised that motions to seal will not be granted as to discovery documents filed with the Court unless the request complies with the common law of this Circuit. See Bond v. Utreras, 585 F.3d 1061, 1073 (7th Cir. 2009) (noting that public "has a presumptive right to access discovery materials that are filed with the court"); Baxter Int'l, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d 544, 545-46 (7th Cir. 2002) (stating that filed discovery documents "that influence or underpin the judicial decision are open to public inspection unless they meet the definition of trade secrets or other categories of bona fide long-term confidentiality... In civil litigation only trade secrets, information covered by a recognized privilege (such as the attorney-client privilege), and information required by statute to be maintained in confidence (such as the name of a minor victim of sexual assault) is entitled to be kept secret"); Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 567-68 (7th Cir. 2000) ("Many a litigant would prefer that the subject matter of a case... be kept from the curious (including its business rivals and customers), but the tradition that litigation is open to the public is of very long standing."); Citizens First Nat'l Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 945-46 (7th Cir. 1999) (warning courts not to allow parties "to seal whatever they want" and urging them to apply "a neutral balancing of the relevant interests" in connection with any good-cause determination presented by a motion to seal). Parties moving to seal are directed to review the foregoing case law, and any motion to seal will be taken by the Court as a certification that the movant has read the applicable case law and has ensured that it is making a good-faith argument that the document in question qualifies for sealing under the Seventh Circuit's stringent standards; and (2) as to Paragraph 7(b)(viii), this is a highly restrictive provision which prevents counsel even from showing designated material to a prospective witness during an interview or during deposition preparation, and the Court is open to a motion to lift or modify it as necessary, while under Paragraph 7(b)(x), the parties may reach their own agreement(s) to allow such use of designated material in this fashion. Mailed notice. (lxk, )
|
|
Filing 39
MOTION by Defendant Health Care Service Corporation for protective order JOINT MOTION Presented before Magistrate Judge (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Certificate of Service)(Kizitaff, Zachary)
|
|
Filing 38
MINUTE entry before the Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt: Motion by Zachary Brian Kizitaff for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Health Care Service Corporation d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois #37 is granted. Emailed notice. (cdh, )
|
|
Filing 37
MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 150, receipt number AILNDC-20935857. on behalf of Health Care Service Corporation d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois Presented before District Judge (Kizitaff, Zachary)
|
|
Filing 36
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Gabriel A. Fuentes: On review of the parties' joint status report (doc. #35 ), the fact discovery cutoff is pushed to 3/29/24. The next joint status report on discovery progress (and including any proposed expert discovery schedule) and settlement status is due at noon on 9/28/23. If the parties at any time decide they wish to engage in a settlement conference, they may contact the courtroom deputy, Lauren Knight, at 312-818-6514. Mailed notice. (lxk, )
|
|
Filing 35
STATUS Report Jointly Submitted by Kelsey Murphy Presented before Magistrate Judge (Wallace, Edward)
|
|
Filing 34
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Gabriel A. Fuentes: This matter having been referred to the magistrate judge for discovery and settlement (doc. #33 ), and the Court having reviewed the status report (doc. #18 ), the fact discovery cutoff is set at 12/20/23. The Court directs the parties to confer under Rule 26(f) and file a joint written status report by noon on 7/20/23 setting forth any agreed or contested modification to that schedule. Expert discovery schedule to be entered at a later date. The Court appreciates that a motion to dismiss is fully briefed before the district court, but no motion to stay discovery has been filed in this matter. Any motion to stay discovery should be on file by noon on 7/20/23. See New England Carpenters Health and Welfare Fund v. Abbott Labs., No. 12 C 1662, 2013 WL 690613, at *2-3 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2013). The parties further are directed to review the Court's Standing Order for Civil Cases Before Magistrate Judge Fuentes and the Top Ten Ways to Defeat Settlement, both available on the Court's website. If the parties at any time decide they wish to engage in a settlement conference, they may contact the courtroom deputy, Lauren Knight, at 312-818-6514. Further, the parties are invited, if they wish, to communicate to Ms. Knight their pronouns for counsel or clients. Mailed notice. (lxk, )
|
|
Filing 33
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER:Case referred to the Honorable Gabriel A. Fuentes for discovery and settlement conference pursuant to local rule 72.1. Signed by Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt on 7/12/23. (rp, )
|
|
Filing 32
MINUTE entry before the Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt: This case has been reassigned to the calendar of Judge Hunt. The motion to dismiss #15 is fully briefed and taken under advisement. The Court will rule by mail. This case is referred to the Magistrate Judge for discovery supervision, with authority to set, adjust, and extend all discovery deadlines, and to conduct a settlement conference, if requested by the parties. The Court notes that a Rule 26(f) Report was filed on 8/9/22 #18 , but none of those dates were adopted by the prior District Judge. The Court will consider class certification or dispositive motion deadlines upon a party's written motion after the Magistrate Judge has set a discovery schedule for this case. Emailed notice. (cdh, )
|
|
Filing 31
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER: GENERAL ORDER 23-0023: IT APPEARING THAT, the civil cases on the attached list have been selected for reassignment to form the initial calendar of the Honorable LaShonda A Hunt; therefore IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the attached list of 282 cases be reassigned to the Honorable Lashonda A Hunt; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all parties affected by this Order must review the Honorable LaShonda A Hunt's webpage on the Court's website for the purpose of reviewing instructions regarding scheduling and case management procedures; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any civil case that has been reassigned pursuant to this Order will not be randomly reassigned to create the initial calendar of a new district judge for twelve months from the date of this Order; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to add the Honorable LaShonda A Hunt to the Court's civil case assignment system during the next business day, so that she shall receive a full share of such cases; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to add the Honorable Lashonda A Hunt to the Court's criminal case assignment system ninety (90) days so that Judge Hunt shall thereafter receive a full share of such cases. Case reassigned to the Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt for all further proceedings. Honorable Steven C. Seeger no longer assigned to the case. Signed by Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer on 6/02/2023.(tg, )
|
|
Filing 30
NOTICE of Correction regarding #29 (kl, )
|
|
Filing 29
Entered in Error (kl, ) Modified on 5/31/2023 (kl, ).
|
|
Filing 28
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The motion to withdraw (Dckt. No. #27 ) is granted. Attorney Meredith Ann Shippee is terminated as counsel of record. Mailed notice. (jjr, )
|
|
Filing 27
MOTION by Attorney Meredith A. Shippee to withdraw as attorney for Health Care Service Corporation. No party information provided (Shippee, Meredith)
|
|
Filing 26
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Plaintiff's counsel filed two certificates of service on the docket (Dckt. Nos. #24 , #25 ). That's double-barreled error. Federal Rule 5 says that discovery requests "must not be filed," and a certificate of service "need not be filed" when the document is not filed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(1)(A), (B)(ii). The filings added nothing to the case, except unnecessary girth. The Court directs all counsel to read Rule 5, and avoid unnecessary filings. Mailed notice (jjr, )
|
|
Filing 25
CERTIFICATE of Service of Plaintiff's Answers to Defendant's First Set of Requests for Production, Interrogatories, and Requests for Admission (Wells, Molly)
|
|
Filing 24
CERTIFICATE of Service of Plaintiff's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures (Wells, Molly)
|
|
Filing 23
ANNUAL REMINDER: Pursuant to #Local Rule 3.2 (Notification of Affiliates)#, any nongovernmental party, other than an individual or sole proprietorship, must file a statement identifying all its affiliates known to the party after diligent review or, if the party has identified no affiliates, then a statement reflecting that fact must be filed. An affiliate is defined as follows: any entity or individual owning, directly or indirectly (through ownership of one or more other entities), 5% or more of a party. The statement is to be electronically filed as a PDF in conjunction with entering the affiliates in CM/ECF as prompted. As a reminder to counsel, parties must supplement their statements of affiliates within thirty (30) days of any change in the information previously reported. This minute order is being issued to all counsel of record to remind counsel of their obligation to provide updated information as to additional affiliates if such updating is necessary. If counsel has any questions regarding this process, this #LINK# will provide additional information. Signed by the Executive Committee on 12/29/2022: Mailed notice. (tg, )
|
|
Filing 22
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Plaintiff's counsel filed a certificate of service for discovery materials (Dckt. No. #5 ), which is not required or permitted by the Federal Rules. The Court directs all counsel to read Rule 5. Going forward, parties must not file certificates of service for discovery absent an order to do so by the Court. Mailed notice. (jjr, )
|
|
Filing 21
CERTIFICATE of Service by Plaintiff Kelsey Murphy For First Set of Discovery Materials (Wells, Molly)
|
|
Filing 20
REPLY by Health Care Service Corporation to memorandum in opposition to motion #19 (Shippee, Meredith)
|
|
Filing 19
MEMORANDUM by Kelsey Murphy in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim #15 (Wallace, Edward)
|
|
Filing 18
STATUS Report Under Rule 26(f) Jointly Submitted by Kelsey Murphy (Wallace, Edward)
|
|
Filing 17
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The response to the motion to dismiss is due on September 2, 2022. The reply is due on September 16, 2022. Mailed notice. (jjr, )
|
|
Filing 16
MEMORANDUM of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 - Adams Declaration)(Shippee, Meredith)(Docket Text Modified on 8/8/2022) (jjr, ).
|
|
Filing 15
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Defendant Health Care Service Corporation (Shippee, Meredith)
|
|
Filing 14
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: For the second time in the span of a week, Defendant filed a motion for an extension of time. On July 25, 2022, Defendant filed a motion for more time to file an answer, even though it received service on May 24, 2022. (Dckt. No. #11 ) And then, on August 2, 2022, Defendant filed a motion for more time to file the joint initial status report. (Dckt. No. #13 ) The deadline for that report did not take anyone by surprise. This Court set the deadline for that report on May 19, 2022, when this Court ordered the parties to file the report by August 2, 2022. The parties have had two and a half months to meet that deadline. But Defendant now asks for another week. Defendant argues that "no party will be prejudiced by this extension of time." (Dckt. No. #13 ) But the parties themselves are not the only consideration. Motions for extensions impose a cost on the judiciary, too. Filing a motion for an extension of time is not like going to the ATM, where a fully automated response is sitting there waiting to give people what they want. It requires a response and an order. A motion for a one-week extension might seem like no big deal in isolation. And, from that perspective, it isn't. But courts in this district have hundreds of civil cases on their dockets at any one time. And they are besieged with motions for extensions of time. In the aggregate, motions for extensions of time consume more resources and take more time for the judiciary than they should. (Think of it like a leaf. It's not a heavy lift, and it's not hard to manage. But then go into your backyard in October, survey the scene, and bring your rake.) Parties who unnecessarily ask for more time, when they have already had plenty of time, drain resources and impose costs on the judiciary. Parties consume the Court's time by asking for more time. So, in effect, parties give themselves more time at the Court's expense. The Court directs counsel to consider the institutional burdens imposed by unnecessary motions for extensions. And next time, try harder to meet deadlines, without having to impose a cost on the Court itself. In the meantime, the motion for an extension (Dckt. No. #13 ) is granted. The joint initial status report is due on August 9, 2022. Notices mailed. (psm, )
|
|
Filing 13
MOTION by Defendant Health Care Service Corporation for extension of time Agreed Motion for Extension of Time to File Joint Initial Status Report (Shippee, Meredith)
|
|
Filing 12
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Defendant's unopposed motion to extend time to respond to complaint (Dckt. No. #11 ) is granted. Defendant shall respond to plaintiff's complaint by August 8, 2022. Mailed notice. (jjr, )
|
|
Filing 11
MOTION by Defendant Health Care Service Corporation for extension of time to file answer Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time To Respond to Complaint (Shippee, Meredith)
|
|
Filing 10
NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Health Care Service Corporation (Shippee, Meredith)
|
|
Filing 9
ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Health Care Service Corporation by Meredith Ann Shippee (Shippee, Meredith)
|
|
Filing 8
ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Health Care Service Corporation by Bryan Matthew Webster (Webster, Bryan)
|
|
Filing 7
ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Health Care Service Corporation by Martin J. Bishop (Bishop, Martin)
|
|
Filing 6
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Kelsey Murphy by Molly Lorraine Condon (Condon, Molly)
|
|
Filing 5
WAIVER OF SERVICE returned executed by Kelsey Murphy. Health Care Service Corporation waiver sent on 5/24/2022, answer due 7/25/2022. (Wallace, Edward)
|
|
Filing 4
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Kelsey Murphy by Mark Richard Miller (Miller, Mark)
|
|
Filing 3
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Kelsey Murphy by Edward A. Wallace (Wallace, Edward)
|
|
Filing 2
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: An initial status report is due by August 2, 2022. Counsel must read the Standing Order entitled "Initial Status Conferences and Joint Initial Status Reports" on the Court's website. The parties must confer as required by Rule 26(f) about the nature, scope, and duration of discovery. The parties must submit two documents to the Court. First, the parties must file the Joint Initial Status Report under Rule 26(f) on the docket. A Word version of the Joint Initial Status Report is available on the Court's website. All parties must participate in the preparation and filing of the Joint Initial Status Report. The Court requires a joint report, so a filing by one side or the other is not sufficient. Second, the parties must email a Word version of a proposed Scheduling Order under Rule 16(b) to the Court's proposed order inbox. Lead counsel for the parties must participate in filing the initial status report. Plaintiff must serve this Order on all other parties. If the defendant has not been served with process, plaintiff's counsel must contact the Courtroom Deputy at jessica_j_ramos@ilnd.uscourts.gov to reschedule the initial status report deadline. Plaintiff should not file the Joint Initial Status Report before the defendant(s) has been served with process. The parties must discuss settlement in good faith and make a serious attempt to resolve this case amicably. All counsel of record must read and comply with this Court's Standing Orders on its webpage. Please pay special attention to the Standing Orders about Depositions and Discovery. Mailed notice. (jjr, )
|
|
Filing 1
COMPLAINT filed by Kelsey Murphy; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 402, receipt number AILNDC-19483908. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - BCBS Policy, #2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Wallace, Edward)
|
|
CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Steven C. Seeger. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Gabriel A. Fuentes. Case assignment: Random assignment. (cm, )
|
|
CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached #Consent To# form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order. (cm, )
|
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 Illinois Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Murphy v. Health Care Service Corporation | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Kelsey Murphy | |
| Represented By: | Edward A. Wallace |
| Represented By: | Molly Wells |
| Represented By: | Mark Richard Miller |
| Represented By: | Molly Condon Wells |
| 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 | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Health Care Service Corporation d/b/a Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois doing business as Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois | |
| 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 | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Health Care Service Corporation doing business as Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois | |
| Represented By: | Martin J. Bishop |
| Represented By: | Bryan Matthew Webster |
| Represented By: | Meredith Ann Shippee |
| Represented By: | Zachary Brian Kizitaff |
| 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 | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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.
