This is an action pursuant to the Federal False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(2). Among other things, the Relators contend that the Defendant has falsely certified its compliance with an Incentive Compensation Ban in the Higher Education Act. According to the Relators, the Defendant provides incentive compensation to admissions counselors based solely on their enrollment numbers, or punishes admissions counselors based solely on their enrollment numbers. (ECF No. 1)

The Defendant objected on relevance grounds to five out of six production requests.

According to the Relators, they are entitled to the documents requested in Requests 1 and 2 because the sale of Keiser University to Everglades College, Inc. occurred during the relevant time period, and this information is necessary to thoroughly understand the Defendant, including any changes in structure, operation, and/or supervision of Keiser by Everglades after the sale. Just as Defendant was able to depose the Relators as to their background and employment history, the Relators contend that they should have the opportunity to analyze Keiser's corporate history and its makeup. Additionally, the Relators assert that they are entitled to the document requested in Request 3 because any representations made by Keiser to the State of Florida regarding its sale to Everglades College are relevant. Finally, according to the Relators, the recruitment activities of third parties are directly relevant to violations of the Incentive Compensation Ban, making the documents requested in Requests 4 and 5 relevant.

*2 The Defendant argues that information regarding the sale of Keiser to Everglades University has nothing whatsoever to do with the allegations contained in the Relators' Complaint. Any questions the Relators have about Keiser's corporate structure, and the reasons for and effect of the sale, can be explored in deposition. The Defendant also disagrees that the recruitment activities of independent third parties are in any way related to whether the Defendant improperly compensated its employees in relation to the number of students they enrolled.

The Court agrees with the Defendant that any background information the Relators require to understand Keiser's corporate history can be explored in deposition, and the Relators have not persuaded the Court that the documents requested in Requests 4 and 5 are necessary to advance the claims in their Complaint.

By prior Order, the undersigned denied the Defendant's motion to shift the costs of electronic discovery. However, in recognition of the burden and expense, the Court directed the Relators to choose ten of the Defendant's employees for whom responsive e-mails would be produced, and limited the discovery to a three year period of the Relators' choosing. The parties agreed upon five search terms in an effort to reduce the number of “hits.” The Court invited the Relators to seek relief from the imposed limitations if circumstances supported additional discovery in the future. (ECF No. 59)

The Relators contend that the Defendant's response thus far has been inadequate and incomplete. The Relators renew their argument that any burden claimed by the Defendant is inflated because its discovery team is not efficient. Based upon what the Relators have received so far, which includes evidence that the Defendant rewarded admissions counselors for enrollment numbers by providing gift certificates, meals, cruises and token days, the Relators seek the emails of ten more employees.

The Defendant points out that it has produced 120,000 emails and 21,000 pages of other materials. The cost of electronic discovery to date exceeds $100,000, in part owing to the necessity of reviewing the emails prior to production for privilege and to protect the privacy rights of students. The Defendant is continuing to produce the emails required by the Court's prior order, but objects to producing the emails of Manuel Christiansen, who has refused on Fifth Amendment grounds to produce some of his own emails to the Defendant.

The Court finds no basis to alter the limitations contained in its prior Order. Should the Relators decide that they require the emails of any additional employees, they shall bear the Defendant's costs of production. The Court will not require the Defendant to produce Mr. Christiansen's emails to the Relators if Mr. Christiansen maintains his objection to producing his own emails on Fifth Amendment grounds. However, the Relators may choose a different employee as an alternative, whose emails shall be produced by the Defendant.

Being fully advised, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. the Relators' Motion to Compel the Production of Relators' Fifth Request for the Production of Documents (ECF No. 89) is DENIED, and

2. the Relators' Motion for Further Email Discovery and Appointment of Special Master for Discovery (ECF No. 101) is DENIED. However, the Relators may obtain the emails of additional Keiser employees if they bear the Defendant's costs related to the production. If Mr. Christiansen maintains his objection to producing his emails to the Defendant on Fifth Amendment grounds, the Defendant need not produce Mr. Christiansen's emails to the Relators. The Relators may then choose a different employee as an alternative, whose emails shall be produced by the Defendant.

*3 DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 14th day of February, 2014.

The Relators have abandoned their request that the Court appoint a special master.